As time passes the true nature of the emergent church movement becomes clearer and clearer. Basically the emergent church is an ecumenical, supposedly “post-modern conversation” that seeks to make the Christ of the church “relevant” to the broader culture by taking on the customs, appearance and language of the culture.
Of course this is nothing new and the post-modernists are virtually indistinguishable from the garden variety modernists as Phil Johnson points out in his article over at Pyromaniacs entitled More on the dearth of conviction in the ECM.
Perhaps the saddest and most perplexing aspect of the emergents is their fevered high-noon fantasies about the “relevance” of the church in modern times and the mass hysteria which is apparently evoked within them when the absolutes of scripture are proclaimed.
Let me say this as clearly as possible, the relevance of the truth proclaiming gospel of Christ upon which the church was founded was not, is not, and never will be a question of relevance to the broader culture. This is because the cross of Christ was not, is not, and never will be anything other than an offence and a stumblingblock to the unregenerate, period.
The unregenerate don’t want Jesus Christ.
The unregenerate don’t desire the Word of God.
The unregenerate don’t seek after salvation.
The church is not to be conformed to the world – “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”(Romans 12:2). Man must submit to and be conformed to God Almighty, not the other way around.
The emergent conversation is misguided and riddled with bad theology at best, and is a subversive ecumenical false-religion tool of the enemy at worst.
I hope you’ll take the time to read Phil Johnson’s post linked above and I’d ask you to pay particular attention to the comments thread where none other than emergent architect Dam Kimball takes up the gauntlet and exchanges comments with Phil.
Below are the two comments I posted over at Pyro on this thread:
Coram Deo said…
Thanks for this concise, thoughtful and devastating expose of the postmodern mindset of the emergent church.
Thanks also for boiling the “emergent conversation” down to its bare essence which is nothing less than holding a skeptical view of the veracity of the scriptures.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my life it’s that a low degree of trust in the scriptures results in a lofty view of man and a high degree of trust in the scriptures results in a lofty view of God.
3:27 PM, April 06, 2007
Coram Deo said…
To echo DJP’s post, (the 2nd on the thread above) the slope upon which the emergents are treading is indeed slippery.
In fact the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would concur wholeheartedly with each point DJP made:
“and for our salvation, [Christ] came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried”
Does such an affirmation make a Mormon a true born-again orthodox Christian in any sense of the word? Of course it doesn’t.
The Mormons have redefined the meanings of those affirming words to fit within their corrupted and false theology.
Since the emergents are self-proclaimed “seekers” and “Christ-followers” then what rationale could they possibly advance for not following the Christ of the LDS or the Christ of the Watchtower Society?
I have to be frank here (not Frank Turk) and note that this sort of Jell-O theology is quite reminiscent of the “gay rights” advocates and apologists who defend their type of morality in the public arena.
Interviewer: “So why should homosexual rights and protections be recognized and enshrined in hate crimes legislation?”
Homosexual advocate: “Well, because you know we’re discriminated against all the time. We don’t have the same rights as other citizens, we’re a minority and need minority protections against the bigotry and prejudice we face every day. Consenting adults shouldn’t be allowed to be discriminated against under the law. We should have equal protection.”
Interviewer: “Let me ask you, should these same types of rights be granted for polygamists? Do they deserve legal protection for their consensual relationships?”
Homosexual advocate: “Oh no, we’re not for that. I’m not for that either, that’s not our aim.”
So why don’t the emergents embrace the Jesus of the LDS, the Jesus of the JW’s, the Jesus of Arius, or the Jesus of Islam?
What’s wrong with those other Jesus figures in their theology? Oops, maybe that’s the problem! What is their theology?
9:37 AM, April 07, 2007