B
brb3
Guest
Is it Pentecostal, Evangelical, or Non-Denom ? What’s the bibical support for ? Who are the leaders who started the movement ?
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
When it comes to this, you’ll have better luck nailing jello to the wall. (Which, as a Lutheran, I can say is pure heresy to even think of doing that to perfectly good jello.)
B
brb3
Guest
Doing some online research of. Some say it is about 12 years in its emergence. Some protestants say it led them to the RCC. Others say its the church of libertines / Laodicea.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
To the best of my knowledge, the movement gained steam under the leadership of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll split and started his own church, which rejected the unorthodoxy and liberalism of McLaren and Bell. All in all, the movement is sputtering and probably will not be around much longer, at least, not as a cohesive movement. Part of the reason that many have joined the RCC is that the Emergent has always been enamored of mysticism and liturgical forms. So, it probably isn’t related to anything doctrinal.
B
brb3
Guest
Looks like its hard to easily sum up.
Best described as Mystical, Sacramental, the New Monasticism movement, Contemplative, Koinonia … the ‘hybrid’ Catholic-Protestant [Ancient-Future] final Church before the End Day. The Church that will finally evangelize all peoples.
Best described as Mystical, Sacramental, the New Monasticism movement, Contemplative, Koinonia … the ‘hybrid’ Catholic-Protestant [Ancient-Future] final Church before the End Day. The Church that will finally evangelize all peoples.
L
LoyalViews
Guest
They’re just another heresy. The leader is mixing Catholicism with Protestantism. It is most definately false.
B
blazerdave
Guest
I’ll tell you this: during my time in seminary (at an interdenominational school), this junk was all the rage. Everybody there had the goatees and the trendy black-rimmed glasses, and it was utterly disgusting. At the time, it felt more like an infection than a Christian movement, and I hope it goes quietly into the not-so-good night very, very soon.
C
CDNowak
Guest
You’d have to be more specific to even get to the point of nailing jello to the wall. The general trend of “emergent” churches comes from non-denominational churches finally reaching the point where they can’t split anymore and started coming together.
Then there are the myriad of small movements in exploring alternative ways of responding to the call to be holy (eg. new monasticism). These could be very fruitful in brining protestants closer to the Church. Then there is a Catholic new monasticism (I believe Monk Rock is a member here…) that is striking back into the eremitic roots of monasticsm, before the rules or imposition of rules. This is an interesting trend, with much opportunity for good fruit, but less certainty of its direction than traditional religious orders.
Then you have the NCReporter and beyond, endorsing the non-denominational practices as the “future” of the 'c’atholic experience. This is morally reprehensible on their part, and only destructive in the short or long run.
None of these have a single leader or founder, their appeal is that they were developed broadly, rather spontaneously. You may find groups that have solidified enough to identify leaders in some field (lay monasticism in particular, as that demands structure), but still any such leader is one among dozens.
B
brb3
Guest
Perhaps a group primal scream, dating to those schismatic Reformation roots … somehow seeking to reunite again under a single, unified leadership. [of Pope & Magi ?]
C
CDNowak
Guest
No, it is rather recent development, and they are not uniting under leadership but distributing the functions of leadership more widely than Christianity has seen (outside select groups like the Desert Fathers). The echo that is there is one for a connection to the richness of spiritualities and history that they can’t find in evangelical, pentecostal, or even mainstream denominations.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The emergent movement has as much in common with the theology of the Reformation as Mickey Mouse has common roots with the Battle of Hastings.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hey hey hey hey now! I wear those black-rimmed glasses you turkey! 
no goutee however…with a Giants cap to cover baldness 
black and orange baby!
no goutee however…with a Giants cap to cover baldness black and orange baby!
B
blazerdave
Guest
HAHAHAHA But you get a free pass, for you do not worship the Most Unholy trinity of the Missional, the Relevant, and the Relational!Hey hey hey hey now! I wear those black-rimmed glasses you turkey!
S
sonichuiscool
Guest
They are reformed. I know many former members of Mars Hill Church in Seattle (the flagship Emerging church). Theologically, they are quite conservative.
Their basic belief is that the Church is no longer in a position of prominence, and accordingly should not try to gain political power but rather make a positive effect on the community through missionary outreach to local communities. It is also known as the missional church for this reason.
From what I have seen, they have experienced some phenomenal growth in recent years.
You can take a look at their website: www.marshillchurch.org
H
Hesychios
Guest
That doesn’t sound too bad …
Sounds like what one might call a charism if this were a Catholic religious order.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Very true, sonic. But while Mars Hill is emergent in the sense that it focuses on mission work, which emergent churches have always tended to do, its theology is light years away from the emergent movement. Driscoll intentionally rejected the postmodernism, relativism, and liberalism of the movement, which is still represented by Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. It is orthodox on doctrine (inasmuch as charismatic, Calvinistic, baptistic theology can be orthodox). The emergent movement is not.
I
Izdaari
Guest
I’m like Driscoll: emergent in methods, but orthodox in doctrine.
But though it’s in my neighborhood, and I like Driscoll’s preaching, I’m not going to join Mars Hill:
- too Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) for me
- too complementarian/misogynistic
- I don’t care for megachurches
B
brb3
Guest
So, tell us about the Pentecostal Emergent church … web links, etc.I’m like Driscoll: emergent in methods, but orthodox in doctrine.
But though it’s in my neighborhood, and I like Driscoll’s preaching, I’m not going to join Mars Hill:
I enjoy the writings of Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, et al. They’re full of wonderful insights, but I don’t agree on lots of things. They are, as Driscoll says, too relativist and too liberal.
- too Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) for me
- too complementarian/misogynistic
- I don’t care for megachurches
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I hear you there. I’m with them on monergism. Outside of that, Calvinism is toxic.I’m like Driscoll: emergent in methods, but orthodox in doctrine.
But though it’s in my neighborhood, and I like Driscoll’s preaching, I’m not going to join Mars Hill:
- too Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) for me
Their writings die the death of a thousand qualifications. I don’t run into authors who write for 300 pages and say absolutely nothing. McLaren is one of them.
I
Izdaari
Guest
I guess it would be called the Izdaarian Charismissional Anglicostal church… but I haven’t started it yet.
My actual church is just a regular Assemblies of God congregation, and I suppose you could describe us as moderate evangelical, sane charismatic, and emergent-friendly.
You might find this link helpful: Chrysalis: From Post-Charismatic To Charismissional
- Status