FGBC/Emergent Compatibility?, Part 9:A Final Word

This is the 9th and final blog post in this series asking the question: IS THE GRACE BRETHREN STATEMENT OF FAITH COMPATIBLE WITH EMERGENT THEOLOGY?

A Final Word

The FGBC Statement of Faith is a good collection of highlights as found in God’s revealed Word. When I say “wiggle room” I mean there will always be places where the devil and deceivers will attempt to insert falsehood and error. Our Statement is not infallible but I believe it to be a good guide pointing people back to the Scriptures, where I believe all of these issues are addressed. If we want to be biblical, then that is our established grid through which we filter and discern every doctrine and practice with the aid of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2).

Is there freedom? Yes, and I relish it especially in areas of music and outreach as long as biblical lines aren’t crossed. But some of the doctrines and practices, far too many, of emerging church and emergent theology definitely cross the line where the Bible, discernment, and just plain Godly wisdom are concerned. In these cases, we can only identify them as compromises.

At one time, there weren’t many questions that we weren’t at least confident were answered in Scripture and I believe that the danger of postmodernism and mysticism is the questioning of God’s Word, or the outright denial of its sufficiency. We need to reject the popular trend of having to re-think, re-imagine, or repaint the Faith. We definitely need to steer clear of unbiblical mystical paths for prayer and guidance. We must identify those among us who seem to be pointing people that way. We must warn them in accordance with God’s Word, which will never change. Truth is knowable (1) and Gods Word is clear and sufficient in the areas we are needful (2 Tim. 3: 16,17). We are therefore to do what it says and refute those who oppose and contradict sound doctrine (Titus 1:5-9). A statement of faith is merely a helpful collection of key points that ideally should uphold the teachings of Scripture and the key areas of content of our faith. I think ours does.

If we are truly committed to resisting false teaching, “test all things” (1 Thess. 5:21), and not waivering in the face of these new and unsound doctrines, then we will also, I believe, be fulfilling God’s plan for us as biblical believers. That would result in God-honoring, boldly proclaiming, God- pleasing Grace Brethren men and women whose Statement of Faith would not be just another contract but a FULL VOLUME proclamation of our convictions in accordance with God’s Word. What glorious changes would be wrought then! Are you ready?

Thanks for reading this lengthy series. Feel free to comment and critique with gentlenss and self-control. Stay tuned for more, Lord willing...

(1) “Can we truly understand the scriptures as believers? Apparently so: Our Lord said – “But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His Own” (John 16:13).
The Bible clearly tells us that if we have the Holy Spirit in us: then we can understand what has been written:
1 Cor. 2:12 “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given us by God.”
Ro 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

FGBC/Emergent Compatibility?, Part 8: The Ordinances & the Rest

This is Part 8 of a blog post asking the question: IS THE GRACE BRETHREN STATEMENT OF FAITH COMPATIBLE WITH EMERGENT THEOLOGY?


What We Believe About Our Ordinances:

Our ordinances are also distinctive as compared to much of what’s being practiced in emerging and emergent churches today (and, for that matter, most other churches and denominations worldwide).

ORDINANCES…(1) baptism of believers by triune immersion (Matt. 28:19) and (2) the threefold communion service, consisting of the washing of the saints' feet (John 13:1-17)

Most emergents wouldn’t agree with triune immersion. Many do not observe threefold communion and again there is the prevalence of viewing the Mass or Eucharist as having validity, which we would reject because of its heresy in Christology.

What About the Rest?

Many emergents would probably give at least a cursory agreement with the stated beliefs in the rest of our Statement of Faith (The Holy Spirit, The Church, etc.). Many teach about the Trinity and there being one true God but there is not uniform agreement on these things and, in some cases, beyond the scope of citing in this work, error abounds in these areas as well (Ex. Erwin McManus’ redefinition of major aspects of the Christian faith (1)).

Many other areas are not in agreement with what the Bible says and subsequently what we lean on in our Statement of Faith. Just looking at the collection of essays from key leaders in the emergent church as laid out in An Emergent Manifesto Of Hope, we can see the following aberrant teachings: a false view of the kingdom ( (e.g. pp.80-81),a lack of concern for spiritual conversion—the true gospel (pp. 35-37, 49, 100), Egalitarianism (pp. 42,175-188), Rejection of original sin/sin nature (p. 43), Inclusivism (pp. 44, 49-50; 190-198), Rejection of sola fide (pp. 82, 159; 194-195), Rejection of sola scriptura (pp. 154-156), the inability to understand God due to our subjectivity (p. 156), and “Orthoparadoxy”—chapter 17.(2).

As we’ve seen, many elements of emergent and emerging theology don’t pass the test and therefore should be resisted on the grounds of the teachings of God’s Word, discernment, and conviction given us by the Holy Spirit.

(1) http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=209&more=1&c=1
(2) An Emergent Manifesto of Hope compiled by Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt as reviewed by Gary Gilley: http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/BookReviews/book_reviews.asp?ID=351

FGBC/Emergent Compatibility?, Part 7: The Hereafter

This is Part 7 of a blog post asking the question: IS THE GRACE BRETHREN STATEMENT OF FAITH COMPATIBLE WITH EMERGENT THEOLOGY?

What We Believe About the Hereafter:

12. FUTURE LIFE. …The judgment and condemnation of unbelievers (Rev. 20:11-15), the eternal life of the saved (John 3:16), and the eternal punishment of the lost (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:15).

Doug Pagitt refuses to even answer the question posed to him concerning what happens to a Muslim when they die, and he doesn’t believe Heaven is actually a place (1).

Hell is definitely in question among many in the emergent church. McLaren questions the eternality of Hell and the very character of a God who would punish the wicked that way (2).
Bell believes we bring hell to earth by our actions (3), and hell is full of forgiven people (4). He also says we bring heaven to earth in a social gospel leaning sort of way (5).

I do not mean to broad brush, but these are popular perspectives believed by more and more in these circles and I don’t see any compatibility in these areas that are major to me.

(1) http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1007/WOTMR-10-22-07-Hour1.mp3 http://www.vibist.com/?p=26, http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/11/doug-pagitt-on-forevermore-life.html
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2638/Todd_Friel http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/01/doug_pagitt_sha.html
(2) http://www.understandthetimes.org/ec/ecmclaren.shtml http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/05/brian_mclarens.html
(3) Velvet Elvis, p. 146-148
(4) Ibid.
(5) In Velvet Elvis, Bell says, “famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter–they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth” (p. 148).

FGBC/Emergent Compatibilty?, Part 6: Salvation

This is Part 6 of a blog post asking the question: IS THE GRACE BRETHREN STATEMENT OF FAITH COMPATIBLE WITH EMERGENT THEOLOGY?

What We Believe About Salvation:

5. MAN. … The necessity of the new birth for his salvation (John 3:35).

When McLaren says he endeavors to see people become “disciples” while remaining in their Hindu and Buddhist contexts as “followers of Jesus”(1), that is problematic to me. He questions major aspects of the gospel (2) There is a push to affirm truth in all religions and the glory of God present in all people whether they are saved or not. Leonard Sweet calls this “flickers of the sacred” that might even be in Hindus (3). Merton and Nouwen who are loved by many emergents say similar things. Some emergents, like Doug Pagitt, espouse a universalism of sorts (4)
A recent trend as outlined in some of the essays in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is that clear teaching and preaching of the gospel is an impure attempt to subjugate people to our belief system in the church (5).

I see no real compatibility in this area.

(1) "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."—Brian McLaren http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newmissiology.htm
“McLaren says that's why congregations in the "emergent church" movement focus more on social action than trying to convert people to Christianity.
McLaren says that if people are "happy being Muslim, or Buddhist or Jewish or atheist," he doesn't think it's right to try to "shoe-horn them out of their religion" into Christianity.” http://www.thepath.fm/news/newsitem.cfm?id=24885
(2) http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/08/enemies_of_the.html
(3) http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac23.htm and read his online book Quantum Spirituality at www.leonardsweet.com
(4) http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/01/doug_pagitt_sha.html
(5) http://christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2096/Bob_DeWaay

FGBC/Emergent Compatibility?, Part 2: The Faith

This is Part 2 of a blog post asking the question: IS THE GRACE BRETHREN STATEMENT OF FAITH COMPATIBLE WITH EMERGENT THEOLOGY?

What We Believe Concerning “The Faith”:

The Statement of Faith is the “current expression of a never ending effort to clarify an understanding of the primary doctrines we accept.” It’s obvious what is meant: we are always seeking to be clear on what we believe through Godly pursuit of biblical study and this has nothing to do with the prevalent emergent belief that God’s revelation is so mysterious that we cannot actually know whether we can hold an orthodox view or not. Brian McLaren questions the entire belief of whether we can actually arrive at and hold truly orthodox beliefs and practice. (1)

Rob Bell believes that we cannot really ever know what the Bible is actually saying and we cannot interpret it correctly: to take the Bible for “what it says” is “warped and toxic” (2) Bell also says that doctrine must flex and morph with each emerging generation (3) like springs on a trampoline.
Doug Pagitt believes that doctrine is not fixed and therefore not ever really settled as to its trustworthiness and that the gospel can actually be embedded in other religious contexts (4). He says things like “what we believe is not timeless” and that our theology will be “ever-changing”, believing that the church is to function as “cauldrons of theological imagination.”(5).

So the question is begged: Is our faith once for all delivered to us as the Bible says (Jude 3), or must we rethink and rework everything in accordance with every shifting generation? Pagitt admits: “ I realize that for many people, this kind of understanding and faith can seem weak, soft, unprincipled, or otherwise dangerous.”(6) I couldn’t have assessed it better myself! He also states and many believe this: “The Emergent imagination is at its most basic level a call to friendship–friendship with God, with one another, and with the world.” (7)

These emergent beliefs are not compatible with our Statement of Faith.

(1) McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy is, in its entirety, a questioning of the veracity of the claim that we can really have a true orthodox Christian faith.
(2) Velvet Elvis, p. 053-054
(3) Ibid. p. 022-028
(4) See Pagitt’s essay “The Emerging Church and Embodied theology” in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (gen. Ed. Robert Webber) and read this: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/01/doug_pagitt_sha.html
(5) Ibid on the essay
(6) Ibid p. 133
(7) Doug Pagitt from An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 18, 19

FGBC/Emergent Compatibility?, Pt. 1: The Bible

Presentation of the Evidence

I believe that many aspects of the abovementioned emergent theological beliefs compromise or even oppose biblical revelation of truth. Since our Statement of Faith is biblical in scope and focus I do not see a compatibility with these areas of emergent theology. Consider these things:

What We Believe About the Bible:

Section One. Covenant. The sovereign congregations…are united in accepting the Holy Scriptures as the sole guide and authority in all matters of faith, doctrine and practice.
Section Two. Statement of Faith. … The Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, Inc., believing the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith and of practice…
1. THE BIBLE. The Word of God, the sixty-six Books of the Old and New Testaments, verbally inspired in all parts, and therefore wholly without error as originally given of God (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

Many teachers of emergent theology often question the veracity of the Bible as we’ve all heard it taught or currently understand it. Many assert that we need to “re-think” virtually everything we know and therefore everything we do in order to reach this postmodern generation. While I commend many for trying to be effective in reaching this generation, much of their proposals and methods are unbiblical in content and execution. Most emergents would agree that the Bible has merit but again to varying degrees of adherence concerning our ability to correctly interpret and arrive at what the Bible is actually saying in a given passage.
Do we need to “rediscover the Bible as a human product” as Rob Bell asks (1) or view it as “story” (2) or its revelations as mere “conversation” that needs reworked and refashioned with every new emerging community of faith? (3)

Our Covenant states that the Bible is our “sole guide and authority in all matters of faith, doctrine and practice” and our Statement of Faith concurs. If one reads the offerings of the emergent and mystical teachers like Bell we can only conclude that the Bible is taken as one way to follow and connect with God. He suggests that it is impossible to do what the Bible says in any sort of objective manner and implies that no one can actually correctly interpret it (4). With the exception of Mark Driscoll (who is not "emergent" but could be considered emerging) who refers to himself as a “devoted biblicist” (5), most of the other teachers in the emergent church look to a variety of other faith traditions, rituals and sources for their patterns of spirituality (6). Many follow the writings of false teachers like Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen (7) and the teachings of the Desert Fathers which were mystical explorations resulting in all kinds of unbiblical errors in doctrine and practice. There is much experimentation in Contemplative mysticism (8), meditative prayer techniques, and various other alleged means of gaining truth about God.

One is hard-pressed to see a compatibility with even this initial area between our adherence to the Scriptures and the emergent view of where truth comes from and through what sources and practices God speaks.
Brian McLaren believes the Bible is only “uniquely authoritative for Christians.”(9) Tony Jones has stated that the Bible is “a (expletive deleted) scary book.” (10) And doesn’t even see a need for a statement of faith (11)
Taking all this into account, I do not see any real compatibility between the emergent teachings and our covenant and Statement of Faith in this vital area. Many areas of emergent theology directly oppose or contradict the Scriptures so there remains no compatibility.

(1) http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/01/rob_bell_fails.html (see also: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html)
(2) http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c55.shtml
(3) This includes Rob Bell’s assertion that doctrines are springy like trampoline springs and must be stretchy and able to morph while being wrestled with in every new generation. Read about this is Velvet Elvis p. 022-028
(4) Velvet Elvis, p. 053-054
(5) From Driscoll’s essay “The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology” in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (gen. Ed. Robert Webber), p. 21
(6) This includes Roman Catholic rituals like Lectio Divina, stations of the cross, icon worship, medieval monasticism, and rituals like Labyrinths http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/03/emergent_church_29.html, More on Labyrinths: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/labyrinth.htm http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_7494893?source=rv http://www.christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Meditation.html
(7) http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac23.htm
(8) Roger Oakland says it well: “Contemplative spirituality provides a mystical formula also known as “spiritual formation” in order to get closer to Jesus. The problem is that this state of silence achieved is similar to that which is reached through eastern meditation, and the realm reached is not the presence of God but the possible presence of demons. The Bible is very clear in it’s warning against practicing divination, which uses mystical methods to conjure up the spirit world. Yet, a growing number of evangelical churches are incorporating contemplative into their church body.” http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c73.shtml
(9) http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000406.html)
(10) http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?&ArticleID=1742
(11) From a Relevant Magazine interview in which Tony Jones is asked:
RM: Emergent doesn’t have a doctrine, but what are some of the key principles that hold you together?”
Jones: Just this morning, we came out with an anti-statement of faith that explains why we don’t have a statement of faith. I’d say that one of the core principles or convictions is that the very nature of theology is one of conversation and dialogue, not one of setting boundaries and safeguards from elusive historic orthodoxy. http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/12/tony_jones_and.html