Replies

"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.

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.

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?

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.

****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).

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