Posted on 12/07/2004 5:12:03 AM PST by missyme
As we enter the 21st century, a vital new expression of Christianity is growing in the United States and worldwide. This movement even has a name. It is called "the Emergent Church."
This movement expresses what I call "progressive evangelicalism," because it emphasizes traditional evangelical beliefs - affirming the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed, a high view of Scripture and the importance of a personal transforming relationship with a resurrected Christ - yet rejects the structures and styles of institutionalized Christianity. The Emergent Church
The Emergent Church turns away from spending money on buildings. Instead, most congregations meet as "house churches" or gather in makeshift storefronts and warehouses.
Emergent churches espouse a decentralized grassroots form of Christianity that rejects the hierarchal systems of denominational churches. Each emergent congregation makes its own decisions by consensus.
Leadership is fluid, with all members sharing authority and participating in the mission of the church. Task forces are assembled to undertake such specific programs as feeding the homeless, establishing a partnership with a Third World church, developing an after-school tutoring program for disadvantaged children or organizing people in a poor neighborhood to solve pressing social problems.
The missionary programs of such congregations are committed to direct involvement with those they decide to serve. These churches want little to do with bureaucratic organizations with professional administrators. Members of these congregations want to be involved personally with those in need. They want to know the names and faces of the people they serve.
Emergent congregations must not be confused with those nondenominational mega-churches that seem to be popping up increasingly in communities across the nation. In fact, the two are markedly different.
Emergent churches often express a disdain for the "contemporary-worship music" heard in many mega-churches.
The worship in emergent churches often includes classical music, and such congregations often follow a more formal liturgical style that may even incorporate such ancient forms of praying as that of monastic orders.
The people who join emergent congregations are often folks who have tired of what goes on in churches that have "contemporary services."
A postmodern mindset
The Emergent Church is often somewhat indifferent to theological and social issues that seem urgent to mainstream evangelicalism. These church members tend to think that the crusade against homosexual marriage is a waste of time and energy, and they tend to reject the exclusivistic claims that many evangelicals make about salvation.
They are not about to damn the likes of Gandhi or the Dali Lama to hell simply because they have not embraced Christianity.
In many ways, these Christians express a postmodern mindset that may come across as being somewhat "new age."
They see care for the environment as a major Christian responsibility. They are attracted to Christian mysticism. They talk a great deal about "spiritual formation" and focus significant attention on the healing of illnesses through prayer.
This new expression of Christianity is growing faster than most sociologists could have predicted. It is thriving, in part, because so many people are fed up with the arguing and pettiness that they claim are all too evident in the rest of Christendom.
It remains to be seen whether the Emergent Church will fade away or become an ongoing expression of Christianity.
But there is no question that it is attracting many sophisticated Christians who contend that traditional mainline churches are devoid of vitality and mega-churches are irrelevantly narrow.
And more important where does that leave free will?
You replied:
More important? Why is being able to proudly quote the last lines of Invictus more important than the direct command from Christ to teach all nations?
I'm not aware of quoting Invictus. Maybe someone else did. Could you explain what you meant?
They are not about to damn the likes of Gandhi or the Dali Lama to hell simply because they have not embraced Christianity.
In many ways, these Christians express a postmodern mindset that may come across as being somewhat "new age."
The people teaching that nonsense are not ministers of Jesus Christ, and their "churches" are not a part of the body of Christ on earth.
Peter was speaking of Jesus Christ when he said in Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved".
Anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ and accept the salvation he offers by grace through faith will not escape eternal damnation. Gandhi and the Dali Lama are no exceptions.
And any "church" which preaches any other gospel than salvation by grace though faith in the resurrected Christ as preached by Peter, Paul, John, and the other apostles is a false church which is deceiving people and sending them to hell.
Egggzzakly right.
Not unlike what was said of Christ? Of Paul and Peter? Of the First Century Church?
Christ has no honor for historic orthodoxy other than the Word of God.
What happens in the home church when there is a doctrinal disagreement?
How about they follow the plan laid out in the Word of God?
How do you think you precious denominations started to begin with?
How "old" is Calvary Chapel or the Southern Baptist?
Matthew 25:31-46 (King James Version)
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Phrases such as "Obedience is not an option, it is a requirement..." post 54 and "Discipleship is not optional" post 138 give the impression that these things are required for salvation. They are not. Salvation is free. The believer gets out of hell free---free of any requirement whatsoever upon the person saved to either become saved or maintain that salvation.
So you have agreed that it is more than getting out of hell, more happens than avoiding hells fire.
Yes. But saying those additional things are required, or that they are not an option, is confusing. Obedience is a fruit of salvation. If you say it is not an option, or it is a requirement, the next question becomes "How much obedience is required before I can be sure that I'm saved?". That is dangerous and not conductive to Christian living. It takes the focus off of Christ and His work and places it instead upon the believer and his work, a losing proposition every time.
I don't wish to be contrary. Easy-believism and make-believism are horrible plagues. Here is a link for your consideration: What Is Saving Faith?. Thanks for the discussion.
Exactly. And Adam and Eve made the fateful choice of choosing death.
And except for those that God is rescuing from the death they chose, fallen man will get what he has chosen.
"Are you questioning John 3:17?"
No. I suggested earlier that you might want to do an objective study on "rebrobation" because you don't understand it. I also suggest you do an objective study on the various meanings of the word translated, "world" in Scripture, and its meaning in the context of the verse you quoted in John 3.
"For you to imply that I was questioning Gods sovereignty is questionable at best. I find it hard to believe that you did not understand my question and point."
I'm not saying you are doing it deliberately, but I base my conclusions on what you wrote in #93,112, 113 (and also in #76, 81, and 88). Man used his free will and made his choice in Eden. Even though he was warned not to do it, he still chose death (thinking all the while that he was actually making a choice to be "God", too). Now he is dead in his sins, hates God, and is not able, even if he was interested, to reach out to God unless God enables him first.
"Be careful of the accusation you make, you will be held accountable."
Sounds like something a Pharisee would have said to Jesus.
It is something Jesus said to the people.
I also suggest you do an objective study on the various meanings of the word translated, "world" in Scripture, and its meaning in the context of the verse you quoted in John 3.
God allowed the Bible to be so corrupted so that I can not take a simple but foundational verse like John 3:17 literally?
CyberCowboy777: "It is something Jesus said to the people."
Yes, but when someone other than Jesus says it, it sounds soooo Pharisaical.
"Isn't that special?"
M-PI: "..I also suggest you do an objective study on the various meanings of the word translated, "world" in Scripture, and its meaning in the context of the verse you quoted in John 3."
CyberCowboy777: "God allowed the Bible to be so corrupted so that I can not take a simple but foundational verse like John 3:17 literally?"
WOW!!! The incredible naivete of that statement blows me away. LOL See ya!
Check this out and tell me what you think
http://www.hofcc.org/churchInfo/essentialReforms.php#1
I have been looking at this congregation:
http://www.reformationcovenant.org/Page.asp?ID=OurCulture
LOL!! A church in the CRE denomination
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.