Bearing False Witness Against Neighbors?
| Posted On: 05/20/08 09:19:34 AM |
Age 34, VA |
Dr. Berman makes some sweeping statements about the nature of the Emergent Church Movement, but nowhere does he quote leaders in this movement to back them up. I think some of this statements are accurate, such as, "We live in a pagan culture and therefore they do not understand Christian speak."
But I would like to see him offer proof from Emergent Church Leaders of the following: "The culture has no idea what Christian teaching is and so we must not offend them." How is the ECM trying to remove the scandal of the cross? The fact that a number of ECM leaders are not engaging in "the culture war" in the same way as older evangelical leaders is not the same thing as abandoning the scandal of the cross.
I also think he makes false assumption when he claims ECM leaders believe, "Doctrine is unimportant. Love and inclusion should be the guide," and "Emphasis on Christian teaching is an obstacle to church growth."
The argument here may not be on the importance of doctrine but on the nature of doctrine. What proof is there that ECM leaders believe doctrine is irrelevant and unimportant? ECM leaders may have different theological positions than Dr. Berman, but difference is not the same as disregard.
As someone who is becoming more familiar with the ECM I belive Dr. Berman is (unintentionally, I trust) bearing false witness against this movement, unless he can show through the words of its leaders that his description of the ECM's beliefs reflect how ECM leaders understand this movement.
|
On what authority
| Posted On: 05/19/08 09:38:45 PM |
Age 50, TX |
Dr. Bermnan,
I am curious, which authority of the Emergent movement did you speak to and/or cite that delineated these five points of the Emergent movement? I find some of them suspiciously modern in their statement and not at all like the Emergent churches I am familiar with. My concern is that you are confusing seeker-sensitive churches with Emerging churches. It would be important to your readers to know the difference and I do not believe that you have done a good job of observing the very important difference.
|
enlightening
| Posted On: 05/19/08 07:02:41 PM |
Age 45, CA |
Thank you for your good views. I work with some "secular" christians who view the church in this manner. Homosexuality, dresiing immodestly, etc. are acceptable in their lives. I believe that many churches are becoming more and more secular. My grandfather and brother are evangelcal pastors who would never "water" down God's word because God will use his word to change people's lives. We should not be worried to offend when using the gospel.
|
Thanks!
| Posted On: 05/19/08 12:15:19 PM |
Age 20, MN |
I appreciated this article. I have sometimes been a bit frustrated and even confused by other articles because people sometimes seem to come across in a more reactive way to the Emergent Church. It is FAR more helpful is one takes the time to address the arguments and point where it is agreed and where it is disagreed. That way people can better distinguish between the good and the bad and that these articles do not argue against the good (such as feeding the poor). In order to reason with people who are erring in doctrine we should "speak the truth in love" and come across not in a firebrand way, but in a way that facilitates discussion and debate, not emotional diatribe. Thank you again. Have a great day and God Bless!
|
Helpful Resource
| Posted On: 05/19/08 11:43:23 AM |
Age 59, IL |
Thank you, Rev. Berman. I will keep your article as a source in answering questions regarding the Emergent Church Movement. It was a clear, scriptural presentation of the issue.
|
Some thoughts
| Posted On: 05/19/08 09:21:10 AM |
Age 47, WI |
Dr Berman,
To start I would like to offer some thoughts to the context of your article. You have spoken strongly about doctrine and the responsibilty of these believers to follow it. Now which doctrine is it these believers are to follow? There are many different doctrines to believe. We complain about someone not believing the way we believe. So if I were a Baptise or some other sect of Christian religon I would be wrong until I believe as you do. My problem is this, todays doctrine is so far from what the Doctrine of Christ is. The Jews have their 613 laws and traditions which we as Christians don't agree with. Now we on the other hand have continued to add our interpatation of what was and our traditions. At what point will the so called leaders of this movement start admitting they don't know it all and need God to lead us. John 10:27 say that " my sheep know my voice and will not follow a stranger" At what point will we trust that. How was it that many churches didn't believe in the revivals of the past yet it was God moving? Just because you don't believe dosen't mean God isn't in it.
|
Emergent: from such stay away
| Posted On: 05/19/08 09:17:39 AM |
Age 61, MO |
All Biblical theology must start and end with the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11). If the post modern or emergent followers hold to this doctrine at all, then they keep it buried under a myriad of psycho babble and rabbit trails, which mostly end with man being glorified rathen than God. "Beware lest any man spoil (plunder) you through philosophy and vain (empty) deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8). George Cancilla
|
|
|
|
|
