My one pastor who does understand the dangers of the emergent church in our old church has noted my use of lighthouse trails and other websites, and says to be careful. He says Rick Warren is not in the same “boat” so to speak as people like Pagitt, Bell, McLaren and the like. Making such connections because one person speaks at a conference, writes on a book jacket, etc. seems flimsy to some. I agree. Two speakers at one conference may not be related, one may be completely emergent while the other is completley orthodox and on message as a Christian. However, if you look at the goals of the conference, then the connections are messy. If the goals of the conference are emergent style goals, then the speaker who appears not to be emergent just may be so. If the person positively quotes emergent types…is there a problem? If they recommend a book, is that enough to make it a problem? What if a person comes out and says they are not into the emergent stuff, and yet they have all the connections in the world? Are we to just take them at their word?
Lighthouse trails does show connections. Book jackets, the backs of books, acknowledgements, conference speakers, quotes on web sites, book recommendations, speakers who show up at a church or college, and many more things are shown to prove contemplative or new age beliefs are seeping in. If Fred is considered on the bad side of things, and there is a middle person who is clearly linked to Fred (we’ll call him Clyde)…and then Clyde is the influence of Ralph…is Ralph connected to Fred? Let’s say most people recognize that Fred is taking great liberties with the Bible, and is actually throwing it out or twisting it in a way most Christians would cringe at. Now Clyde, Clyde recommends Fred’s books in his own books. They have meetings together often. They speak at the same conferences. Clyde is less objectionable than Fred at first listen. Then there is Ralph. Ralph has meetings with Clyde but never Fred. Clyde acknowledges Ralph in his books, and others who like Ralph too. Clyde, Ralph, and a few others who like Ralph speak at a conference together. Clyde comes to Ralph’s church and trains people there. Is this enough of a connection to Fred to say Ralph has some issues because he’s connected to Fred even though it’s through someone else?
I have to admit, I tend to believe that following connections and people we recommend for reading is important. I also think if the conference theme is obviously questionable, then speaking at the conference suggests approval unless a person actually takes a strong stand at such conference and speaks against the theological problems presented there… Oh, I’m rambling and not sure if this post makes sense….but maybe you see my thinking here?
I am a C...I am a CH...I am a CHRISTIAN 
Birds of a feather flock together.
I am a Calvary Chapel pastor (in the process of affiliation); I was saved at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa; Chuck Smith is one of my favorite commentators; I quote him often; I know lots of pastors, most of whom are CC pastors; I hang out with them, blog with them, attend conferences (when I can) with them; certainly I have a bias; un-apolitically so; because of my bias, in my teaching and preaching if one pays attention, they can pick up that bias.
So the same methodology can be applied to other pastors, if one will just listen.
Un-ashamedly, I believe that all things must be judged by the Word of God; not by feelings, nor numbers in attendance, nor by experience, nor by the amount of money that is collected. Therefore, using the Word as The Standard, the things that line up with the Word are acceptable; the things that don’t must be viewed with suspicion until proven otherwise.
Well that is tough to be fair in judgment when you are utilizing connection to make a connection. A.W. Tozer used to speak at many conferences where he didn’t agree with their doctrines, including Catholic conferences.
The Lord has used many people in my life to grow in Him. Many of which I don’t agree with a lot of there doctrine. I get accused all the time – I am always amused when people assume I believe something simply because I quoted somebody, or read this book, or went to this conference, etc. Pretty silly the assumptions made simply by a back-handed association.
I said all of that to say, we can’t always tell because of connections. Okie and I will never agree on everything that is ‘fluff’ I’ll go off for retreats at a Monastary – I get accused of being Catholic or Emergent, so Okie posts on my blog and we interact elsewhere so does that make him Catholic or Emergent because of a connection? Should he be suspect and scrutinized because we have this connection? Truth is I am not Catholic or Emergent but that is the association people make who don’t know me.
There is a lot of value in some Catholic writers, some Charismatic writers, some Baptist, some Methodist writers and even a few emergent writers, etc. I can not diss truth no matter from what corner it comes, but I also have to be discerning as to what is truth and it is measured against THEE TRUTH. Like Okie says it comes back to the Word, that is the standard not connections and associations.
One thing I find is I guess consider things added together. It’s not connections by itself, it’s more than that. It’s connections and terminology used. It’s also how the person reacts when you ask them about these connections (if you get the chance). It’s what is said in sermons, it’s what is promoted. It’ slearning definitions of terms used that are common…
Yes, CL, it is always about context, each piece of the puzzle coming together to paint the scene.
Some people spend too much of their time with their noses pressed against the glass, missing the entirety of the scene. They mistakenly believe that the closer they get to something their understanding will be made all the better for it, but if they would take a step or two back for context’s sake, the truth of what it is that they have become so intrigued might be revealed for the lie it really is.
By the same token a person can also miss the truth that abounds for the sake of their having become intrigued with a lie, or even their becoming intrigued with a truth which in spite of its truthfulness has clearly been forbidden by God for us to embrace or partake of.
I am reminded of Eve who for a time missed the context of all the garden for the sake of that one mystery, that one tree of great intrigue:
Oh foolish Eve who’s head did turn
From all God’s blessings ran
For in a moment’s moment yearned
A secret far too grand
Oh foolish Eve who’s head did turn
From God’s authority
For in a moment’s moment changed
All man’s destiny
Oh foolish Eve who’s head did turn
From all God did command
For in a moment’s moment learned
A knowledge you now wish you never had
-el
I charge that the church is presently messing with certain practices (Calling them ancient-new) that have clearly been forbidden by God, and there might very well be some hidden truths in the midst of what it is they are now waltzing with, ’round and ’round; However, God has said to leave these mysteries alone for a reason. Dare we test Him to find out why? I am certain that Eve would have much rather have remained ignorant to the reality of “death” once her eyes were “opened” to it.
Oh, but we are a stubborn and foolish people, believing that we can build our towers to the heavens and enter the gates on our own or before our appointed times. So, as He allowed Eve to entertain her own curiosities, it seems He will allow the church to entertain its own, but not without consequences. It is really quite simple; When He says, no, He means, “No!”
Good point el…
The poem really provokes thought also.
In my music pastor’s responses….he had been in agreement with me. I hadn’t mentioned some like Rick Warren. He made it clear he doesn’t see McLaren and Warren it the same boat. Really, they don’t look the same at first blush. They may even act like they aren’t about the same stuff. However, I think they are both trying to change church from similar angles, but maybe not on the same exact line. The music pastor is expressing that they aren’t linked despite the similar associations.
Anyway, the pastor has challenged me to look at myself, am I just assuming the motives of the old lead pastor in stating he has no questions but wants to listen? Am I just trusting lighthouse trails and other sites rather than discovering for myself (by reading more widely of these other men)? Basically, am I accusing without any evidence?
I do not think I am accusing without evidence, and I have found my sources to be true every time I have tested them.
Yes, any one falsehood by itself may not seem like much of big deal. One might even reason this falsehood to be a rather manageable untruth, perhaps even going so far as to call it a “non essential”, simply not worth fussing over, but I suggest that it is all of these “non-essentials” together that ultimately paint a new sort of scene, and if the pointillistic, neo-impressionist painter was to acquire too many non-essential dots upon his canvas then his scene would become spoiled, and the truth of his creation would no longer be visible. The essentials of his scene would become tainted by all of his non-essential dots.
Pointillism: a neo-impressionst painting technique which uses dots of pure colors to create a scene.
See Seurat’s “Sunday Afternoon” and imagine someone coming along and tossing even one dot upon the canvas that Seurat had not intended. Then imagine several people coming along and tossing dots here there and everywhere, which Seurat never intended.
Up close, each additional dot may seem to have very little impact upon the scene as a whole, but if you step away and look again… Now we can see that the artists intentions have been distorted and ultimately the scene is no longer pure, owing to all of these “non-essential” dots.
This is what I believe people like Warren, Mclaren and Pagitt are doing to the canvas of Christianity. Many have argued that because these men profess the name of Jesus as Lord and Savior that what they do or do not do beyond that is regarded as a non-essential issue, but I suggest that these men, with all their non-essentials have been and are ultimately distorting the very Gospel message which they also profess, but one must step back to see the scene in its entirety to realize this.
Sunday Afternoon…
Very clear description El. Can I use it in a meeting? It might be useful…
If there is anything worthy of use, it’s yours. ::hugs::
When my pastor recently attended a conference at Mariners church in Orange c calif, he came home using Missional words but says clearly that he is not in agreement with the theology being taught by Brian Mclarin . He does say that he highly respects men like Erwin McManus. When I have attended conferences over my lifetime, I have been greatly influenced by them.
This is dangerous territory for pastors that are trying to sit on the fence.
Now our youth pastor(our senior pastors son(yes nepitism)
is doing Labyrinths with our youth groug and reading books about bringing contemplative S into our youth group.He has done the NOOMA dvds too. This is our pastors son…do we really think our senior pastor does not know this???
Our Elders except one, hadn’t ever heard of the word “emergent” before I brought this to his attention.
It is overwhelming but I keep praying for God to show me what my place in all of this is. Our pastor is a couple of years away from retiring. It won’t be soon enough. Then I really need to be on my knees and reading the word..the only TRUTH!