Influential Baptist (SBC) Layman Challenges Emerging Church

Christian Post ^ | Apr. 02 2007 | Audrey Barrick

[Between the Lines]

An influential Baptist in Missouri believes the Emerging Church movement is one of the most dangerous and deceptive movements infiltrating Southern life and he's out to stop it.

Roger Moran, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, is a conservative layman at First Baptist Church in Troy, Mo. But he's also considered the most powerful Baptist in the state, St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper reported Monday.

Moran's driving concern is the rise of the emerging church and its threat to the future of the Baptist church in Missouri and across the nation.

"Not since the stealth tactics of the CBF (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship - a group of more moderate Baptists which left the SBC) have we seen a movement operate so successfully below the radar of rank and file Southern Baptists," said Moran at an SBC Executive Committee meeting earlier this year.

While Moran says the issue of emerging churches is one facing the entire Southern Baptist Convention – the largest Protestant denomination in the United States – the matter is being played out in the local Missouri Baptist context.

“In my home state, the Missouri Baptist Convention is on the brink of a near civil war – and at the heart of our struggle has been the blatant dishonesty of those who are determined that Missouri Baptists will embrace this new postmodern approach to ministry," said Moran in his speech to the committee.

The Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC) – the state arm of the SBC – claims the affiliation of nearly 2,100 churches across the state. In recent years, a church called The Journey was launched in St. Louis and has grown to 1,300 members today. The latest controversy surrounding The Journey is serving alcohol during services and theological discussions. The church also hosts film nights where attendants can watch R-rated movies.

The Journey, which is "inter-denominational," has ties to the Missouri Baptist Convention, which provided a $200,000 loan for the new church. Its use of alcohol is contrary to SBC's traditional stance opposing alcohol as a beverage and its "uncompromising hostility to the manufacture, sale, importation and transportation of alcoholic beverages," according to one of 57 resolutions on the issue in the denomination.

Responding to Moran's comments on the emerging church movement, the Rev. Darrin Patrick, pastor of The Journey, told St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "When you're stricter than God about what He commands and permits, younger pastors are not going to play ball. They're not going to take one for the denomination."

Moran's main concern is for these young emerging church leaders who are training church planters in SBC's North American Mission Board (NAMB) and the young leaders that the SBC "[seems] to be pursuing" for leadership positions in the denomination.

"For within this group of young SBC leaders are those who strongly oppose the SBC’s long standing position on alcohol," said Moran, "and those who now want us to move toward embracing the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues; and those who are now telling us that CBF really wasn’t that much of a problem; and those who are now calling for a ‘revolution’ to move the SBC back to what they call the 'center.'"

Moran called for a "full and thorough investigation" of the degree to which the emerging church movement has "infiltrated" the SBC.

The NAMB released a statement in February showing the same concern of some elements of the Emerging Church movement that conflict with solid doctrine and biblical practice, but also expressing confidence that NAMB church planters are not violating policies prohibiting the use of alcohol. The domestic mission agency further pointed out young leaders that are keeping with traditional views while in the postmodern movement.

"It is important to remember that there are many young leaders in SBC life today who hold to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, distance themselves from views like those found at Emergent Village (considered the far left wing of the emerging church), but consider themselves part of the ‘Emerging Church,’" stated the NAMB. "For that reason, we are confident that the needed research into this important area will be conducted in a way that is respectful of all and motivated by a desire to keep our convention focused on its Christ-centered, biblical foundation.”

[Between the Lines]

"It is important to remember that there are many young leaders in SBC life today who hold to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, distance themselves from views like those found at Emergent Village (considered the far left wing of the emerging church), but consider themselves part of the ‘Emerging Church,’" stated the NAMB.

These words leapt off the page at me. They hold to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 yet choose the label of "Emerging Church."

My purpose for starting this thread is not to go into what is wrong with the Emerging Church movement (there are volumes of material on that), but instead to ask What is wrong with us, that a church that shares our beliefs would choose not to be called by our name but instead be called by that of another church?

What are we doing wrong and what are they doing right?

I realize that the subject of this article is controversial, but I ask that you please limit you comments to this question. No, I am not dictating what you can post in this thread. You may post anything you wish so long as it complies with the rules of this board. But I am asking you kindly to keep it civil, for my hope is that through introspective we can build up our church without tearing someone else’s down. Thank you for your cooperation. God bless.

[flynmudd]

I certainly hope the SBC stays afloat unlike that other denomination that has split. Southern Baptists are a hardy lot and are a lot like Texans, rarely take crap. The way the left is going “religious” is by forming their own church that practices whatever makes you FEEL good can’t be bad. I won’t be left behind on the day of reckoning, I’m more than ready to go to Heaven. It’s already hellish here on earth.

[will of the people]

>>I won’t be left behind on the day of reckoning,

I’m pretty sure no one escapes the day of reckoning

>>I’m more than ready to go to Heaven. It’s already hellish here on earth.

Maybe it would be better if you were more than ready to be light in the darkness, than take the view that since you’re ready let’s end the whole thing and get me out of here. The whole “I’m saved- you can go to Hell” attitude is what a lot of people are trying to distance themselves from.

[Between the Lines]

I am certain that the SBC will be around for some time to come. The question seems to be just how big a tent the SBC will be. There seems to be a movement that wishes that all churches affiliated with the SBC fit neatly within a certain mold. Some think that Southern Baptist is a denomination. Baptist is a denomination, Southern Baptist is a confederation if you will, of like minded churches.

I was very surprised to learn from this article that everything I have been told about the emergent church is not true. This church holds to the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. That in my opinion makes them more like us than not.

What is so bad about them that makes some wish to drive them out? And what is so bad about us that they share our doctrine, yet choose not to be called Southern Baptists?

[Between the Lines]

This is the website of the Journey - http://www.journeyon.net/flash/

[flynmudd]

Nope. I see this country going to the dogs and I don’t want to watch it. I see/hear Christian bashing everyday, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the fight and my cheeks are bruised from the constant turning. I don’t believe that I told anybody to go to hell, I said that the world is on it’s way there in a handbasket. You don’t have to preach to the Preacher’s kid. Sometimes the truth is right in front of your eyes.

[MrEdd]

Mat 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,
Mat 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

[will of the people]

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Interesting scripture in light of alcohol being cited as one of the problems with the emergent church. Thanks for helping me make my point

[Alex Murphy]

My purpose for starting this thread is not to go into what is wrong with the Emerging Church movement (there are volumes of material on that), but instead to ask What is wrong with us, that a church that shares our beliefs would choose not to be called by our name but instead be called by that of another church?

I think it's wrong to assume that we, the older generation of believers, have done anything "wrong". Take a look at the demographics that comprise the Emergent movement. IMO what we're seeing is nothing more than a younger generation rebelling against their elders.

Besides, how do we know that they (still) believe what we believe?

[Between the Lines]

You may be right. Our youth leave the church in droves when they come of age. It may just be rebellion. If it is, then we need more of these stealth SBC churches for them to run to. At least they would still have the same doctrines.

[MrEdd]

The problem with making the substance alcohol a sin rather than the behavior of drunkenness is that when you deviate from scripture so radically you discredit your own authority when confronting real apostacy

[GoLightly]

What is wrong with us, that a church that shares our beliefs would choose not to be called by our name but instead be called by that of another church?

Their choosing to go a different way doesn't make what you're doing wrong, just not quite right for them. If they end up going way far off the deep end, you might find yourself glad that they have chosen to take a new & unrelated name.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

****What is wrong with us, that a church that shares our beliefs would choose not to be called by our name but instead be called by that of another church?****

I am just geussing but I would say that a church that does not use the denomination name will say they're trying to reach out to people who are "unchurched" or they're trying to name their church after the community or neighborhood name to reach out them hoping that they don't pre-judge based on the Baptist, Medthodist, etc. name. For example here in Atlanta we have Charles Stanley who pastors First Baptist Church Atlanta while his son is a few miles up the highway at the Northpoint area of Atlanta and he calls his church Northpoint Community Church (I don't think Andy Stanley is an emergent church person I'm just using that as an example).

[blue-duncan]

Hey I didn’t know beer was alcohol. I thought it was liquid bread.

[will of the people]

I agree. I've always wondered how many good fundamentalists will volunteer for hell if wine is served at the marriage supper of the lamb.

[sozoe777]

1

[Danette]

In a move that is designed to cause the “separation of Church and State” worry warts to yawn — because such people don’t mind it when leftists mix Church and State — Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have joined together to promote what is amusingly being called a “moderate” Baptist organization to rival the Southern Baptist Council. (Carter, Clinton Build Coalition To Attract Moderate Baptists)

Read the rest here:
http://www.bloggernews.net/14167