I was reasonably sure that this was going to be the silliest thing I'd ever read with regard to the emerging church movement.
I was wrong.
How about this: "Emerging Church is leading Protestants back to Rome". Seriously...
If you followed the link, you know it refers to a publication of the GARBC, an organization for which I have at least modest respect. But this is just silly. There are many legitimate concerns surrounding all things Emerging Church, many of which I've documented on this blog. But this is just ridiculous.
Here's a sampling of the article's main points:
a) "Emergent leaders say God’s Word no longer holds the answers to life’s questions."
Really? Which "emergent leaders" say this? The question emerging church people ask is not if the Bible holds life's answers, but how we are to interpret and (more importantly) live these answers.
b) Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy "rejects the Word of God" because... well, ... because he uses too many labels!
The author actually claims that the reason McLaren uses labels like "post/Protestant" and "Anabaptist/Anglican" to refer to himself is because he rejects the Word of God. He offers no real logic or reason to support this assertion, and one gets the distinct feeling that this author simply could not have actually read A Generous Orthodoxy and come to this conclusion. Surely there are problems with A Generous Orthodoxy, as I've documented here. But this kind of broad brush defamation should be beneath the dignity of a Christ follower.
c) It's bad to enjoy "formal liturgy, the religious rites and a reverence for God".
Here's a classic problem for those who want to see Satan in the Emerging Church. They fail to understand that one can believe in Truth and Experience. Someone in my shoes, when cornered, will claim that Truth leads to Experience. But plenty of other followers of the Son claim that their Experience led them to the Truth. I won't quibble. The fact is that some people can enter into a more full communion with God via things like liturgy, communion, baptism, etc... And some people personally prefer a more "reverent" worship posture. These are grounds to condemn? Really?
---
Also of irritating note: the article quotes McLaren, but doesn't give a citation. I wanted to look up the quote they give and see it in context, but I can't. Also, they mention Robert Webber, but don't mention that he's recently gone home to be with the LORD. I understand that the magazine is just reprinting an article from February (before Dr. Webber died), but common courtesy would usually dictate that an editor add something like [recently deceased], or maybe a footnote, or something! I get the feeling that if the article made mention of someone more "palatable" to the GARBC, such homage would have occurred. But maybe I'm just jaded...
The gentleman the wrote the article was, by his own admission, raised as a Roman Catholic. I'll cut him some slack for that. But to try to make the case that the Emerging Church is actually leading people to convert to Roman Catholicism, and without citing a single case in which it's happened?
It has all the look of a smear and fear campaign to me.
Hatushili
Friday, September 14, 2007
Danger: Baptists being coverted to Maryism by Emerging Church!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This was the section that annoyed me the most.
“…we tried the Catholic church across the street and immediately enjoyed the formal liturgy, the religious rituals and a reverence for God.” What a tragedy for this family. They left a shallow worship experience and replaced it with an idolatrous worship experience.
It appears that the author is calling the “formal liturgy, the religious rituals and a reverence for God” idolatrous! Which of those three are idolatrous? Certainly not a reverence for God! Can’t be religious rituals either; every denomination even Baptists, have religious rituals/traditions whether they are lighting candles and using incense or holding hands and singing after communion. (both of which I like by the way). I really can’t imagine how formal liturgy could be labeled idolatrous either.
I certainly don’t agree with a huge number of things regarding the Roman Catholic Church; however, those three are not a problem with me. In fact most people my age would agree with the antagonist of the story (the catholic convert). There is something awe inspiring about stain glass windows, the smell of incense, the participation in something ancient that honestly does appeal to the emerging generation’s heightened sense of spirituality.
I simply wish we could find a way to take those ancient and somber things, throw in a little cultural relevance and place them along side an accurate and theologically firm understanding of Scripture, mix in a strong community of honest and unmasked believers… naive I know…but it’d be nice.
Much of what is going on in this article is just standard knee-jerk Fighting Fundamentalism, JB. This movement cut its teeth on it's anti-Catholic passions. They're still fighting a war with the RCC, only they don't realize they've allowed the front to drift where it ought not.
I'm not much for theological wars, but I do agree that RCC theology is fundamentally and critically flawed. That does not, however, mean that everything they do is anathema!
More to the point, precisely what good does it do to bash the RCC with this broad brush? Isn't it true that Catholicism in America is as diverse as, say, Baptist-ism is? You'll find a wide array of beliefs among Baptists - some fairly substantial. You'll also find ... (warning: shocking, traumatic news ahead) ... some Christ-followers in Catholic churches.
Let's keep our criticism properly focused and not use these sorts of broad-side attacks, please.
Hatushili
Hello Hatushili--
I'm having a hard time reconciling your first statement: "Much of what is going on in this article is just standard knee-jerk Fighting Fundamentalism"...
With your second:
"Let's keep our criticism properly focused and not use these sorts of broad-side attacks, please."
re: anonymous Thank you for your concern. I, like most people, like to think I'm always being objective and fair, but sometimes I'm simply not.
Having said that, I guess I should explain that I came from a "knee-jerk Fighting Fundamentalist" background myself. I think that sometimes makes me overly hard on others in that position now.
It's my hope that my original post stuck to the facts of the article I was critiquing, and did not wander into broad-brush smears. It's also my personal belief that most of the material in the article I critiqued is, in fact, standard (knee-jerk) Fundamentalist rhetoric.
For example, if the author has read much of McLaren, I think he's clearly misrepresenting (or maybe misunderstanding) him badly. He's also using a very broad brush to paint nebulous (and unnamed) "emergent leaders" as unsavory at best, heretics at worst.
Inasmuch as my "knee-jerk" statement [in the comments section, not the post itself] fits the same broad-brush principle, I apologize. If I had it to do over again, I'd probably describe these folk as "what I've personally observed", or better yet, "like the circles I once surrounded myself by"... I unfortunately tend to think less about the wording of my comments than the post themselves.
All that to say, I think you've got a point! I hope you understand what I meant.
Thanks for you input, and for helping to keep me honest.
Hatushili
Post a Comment