Four things found in most Emerging Church movements.

[bonnie]

Long but interesting

 

 

 

 

Four things found in most Emerging Church movements.
1. Downplay the importance of sound Bible doctrine
2. Ecumenical, seeks to break down barriers between faiths and denominations
3. Strong reliance on Spiritual Disciplines over a deep study of the Word of God.
4. Neglect of Bible prophecy

 

Message 1 - The Emerging Church Controversy within Adventism

Pastor Steve Wohlberg examines how elements of mysticism have slowly been creeping into the remnant movement. He leaves no stone unturned in this compelling ...

YOUTUBE.COM

 

[Kevin H]

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

We need to be careful, but we have to be aware that Satan attacks us from both outside but also from very conservative approaches that we end up trusting out of fear of them out there.

[bonnie]

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

We need to be careful, but we have to be aware that Satan attacks us from both outside but also from very conservative approaches that we end up trusting out of fear of them out there.

Are all those opposed to the Emerging Church movements members of sub groups  of Adventists?

[JoeMo]

I only watched a portion of the video before I was completely alienated.  Are we Christians so shallow that we find it necessary to attack each other?  While I agree that some in the emergent church practice the 2 items described by Bonnie and the video (I say 2 because 1, 3, and 4 are simply restatements of each other);  I think item 2 is commendable.  While believers squabble with each other over who has the right to lord their opinion over the fellow believers who are "lost and deceived", the world is aligning itself against Christianity and Judaism.  If we expect to overcome as shown in the letters to the churches in Revelation, it's time to quit shooting each other.  True, some in  the emergent church give spiritual gifts a priority over deep study of scripture and prophecy (to their detriment), traditional denominationalists give deep study of scripture a priority over spiritual gifts (to their detriment).  There is a ditch on either side of the road.  It's time for all of us to find the middle of the narrow path going forward.

 

It would be one thing if those saints obssessed with Bible study and straining to correlate scripture with SoP were doing so to learn "what does the Lord say"; but so many use the Bible and the little red books to beat others about the head and shoulders to prove that they are right and others are wrong.  Frankly, I grow weary of it.

 

If you want to continue the infighting while ignoring the dark forces outside of the church massing for the end-time wars, be my guest.  If people were really studing prophecy, they would drop the infighting and unite against those dark forces - and I'm not talking about the papacy or the emergent church.

 

If there is an emergent church to worry about, it is the emergent church of militant Islam; not people who are seeking a broader and deeper relationship with God.

[CoAspen]

Not going to read it....but immediately had thoughts about posting the following, decided against it. Then Joe posted his reply....and...Four things that Athiest believe in and Christians also...Four things Found in Non-believers homes also found in Christians home...Four things that Criminals do and Christians also.....etc....etc...etc...

[bonnie]

I only watched a portion of the video before I was completely alienated.  Are we Christians so shallow that we find it necessary to attack each other?  While I agree that some in the emergent church practice the 2 items described by Bonnie and the video (I say 2 because 1, 3, and 4 are simply restatements of each other);  I think item 2 is commendable.  While believers squabble with each other over who has the right to lord their opinion over the fellow believers who are "lost and deceived", the world is aligning itself against Christianity and Judaism.  If we expect to overcome as shown in the letters to the churches in Revelation, it's time to quit shooting each other.  True, some in  the emergent church give spiritual gifts a priority over deep study of scripture and prophecy (to their detriment), traditional denominationalists give deep study of scripture a priority over spiritual gifts (to their detriment).  There is a ditch on either side of the road.  It's time for all of us to find the middle of the narrow path going forward.

 

It would be one thing if those saints obssessed with Bible study and straining to correlate scripture with SoP were doing so to learn "what does the Lord say"; but so many use the Bible and the little red books to beat others about the head and shoulders to prove that they are right and others are wrong.  Frankly, I grow weary of it.

 

If you want to continue the infighting while ignoring the dark forces outside of the church massing for the end-time wars, be my guest.  If people were really studing prophecy, they would drop the infighting and unite against those dark forces - and I'm not talking about the papacy or the emergent church.

 

If there is an emergent church to worry about, it is the emergent church of militant Islam; not people who are seeking a broader and deeper relationship with God.

Just a slight correction.I didn't describe anything. I simply said it was long but interesting.

 

As for attacking I think it gets done quite frequently.

 

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

I don't think I can name one that I know that belongs to any sub group of adventists. As hard as it is for some to believe not everyone accepts their opinions on this matter gospel

[bonnie]

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

We need to be careful, but we have to be aware that Satan attacks us from both outside but also from very conservative approaches that we end up trusting out of fear of them out there.

Just a little curious. Do you consider Ted Wilson belonging to some of the subgroups of adventism? I was just listening to him and others  on you tube and they certainly are not endorsing your opinion or that of those that are so enthusiastic.

Just because it is Ted Wilson doesn't mean you have to agree with him but could some assume his educated opinion on this matter is at least as valid as yours?

 

SDA Pres Ted Wilson Warns against spiritual formation Oakwood Student Confirms SPIRITUAL FORMATION YouTube2

[JoeMo]

Bonnie says in post #6:
"Just a slight correction.I didn't describe anything.
 
But in post #1 she says:
"Four things found in most Emerging Church movements.
1. Downplay the importance of sound Bible doctrine
2. Ecumenical, seeks to break down barriers between faiths and denominations
3. Strong reliance on Spiritual Disciplines over a deep study of the Word of God.
4. Neglect of Bible prophecy"
 
Isn't this quote from post #1 your words?  It sure looks to me like you were describing/summarizing/opining on something there.  If you were quoting from the video, it would/should have had quatation marks around it.
 
Just because a sub-group isn't described by an official name where all main words start with capitial letters doesn't mean their aren't "sub-groups". Aren't "emergent" SDA's that are such a "danger" to the denomination a subgroup? Aren't "liberals" and "conservatives" subgroups?  I've never met an SDA who is not part of some grass-roots subgroup. Members of CA are a sub-group of SDAs; and there are sub-groups within CA.  Take for example the trinitatians and non-trinitarians who are having such an active discussion right now.  A previous subgroup division was the "EGW is infallible" group vs. the "no she isn't" group.

[bonnie]

Bonnie says in post #6:

"Just a slight correction.I didn't describe anything.

 

But in post #1 she says:

"Four things found in most Emerging Church movements.

1. Downplay the importance of sound Bible doctrine

2. Ecumenical, seeks to break down barriers between faiths and denominations

3. Strong reliance on Spiritual Disciplines over a deep study of the Word of God.

4. Neglect of Bible prophecy"

 

Isn't this quote from post #1 your words?  It sure looks to me like you were describing/summarizing/opining on something there.  If you were quoting from the video, it would/should have had quatation marks around it.

 

Just because a sub-group isn't described by an official name where all main words start with capitial letters doesn't mean their aren't "sub-groups". Aren't "emergent" SDA's that are such a "danger" to the denomination a subgroup? Aren't "liberals" and "conservatives" subgroups?  I've never met an SDA who is not part of some grass-roots subgroup. Members of CA are a sub-group of SDAs; and there are sub-groups within CA.  Take for example the trinitatians and non-trinitarians who are having such an active discussion right now.  A previous subgroup division was the "EGW is infallible" group vs. the "no she isn't" group.

No,it is not my quote. My error.

Nice spin I guess as far as sub groups go.

 

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

The above is fairly plain. It is dismissive of anyone that disagrees with the Emerging church movement. Those that do are somehow made out to be less than those that agree.

Is Ted Wilson part of that "sub group" of adventists trying to scare others into joining their movement? Or is it possible that those that disagree do so after a great deal of study? If they do not reach the same conclusion you do are they somehow less of a christian as you define christian? 

 

There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

This is almost humorous as that is the exact attitude of the "sub group" that endorses the Emerging Church movement.

 

 

 

[LifeHiscost]

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

We need to be careful, but we have to be aware that Satan attacks us from both outside but also from very conservative approaches that we end up trusting out of fear of them out there.

 

 

9Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie-- I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.

10“Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. 11I am coming soon.^d Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. 12All who are victorious will become pillars in the Temple of my God, and they will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of my God, and they will be citizens in the city of my God—the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven from my God. And I will also write on them my new name.

 

20“Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. 21Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.Revelation 3

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

Bonnie,

The things you wrote in red and respond to are not quotes from my post; they are from Kevin's. Your comments after quoting me make it seem like you believe I made the statements in red.  That being said, I DO agree with Kevin.

 

Bonnie says:

"Is Ted Wilson part of that "sub group" of adventists trying to scare others into joining their movement? Or is it possible that those that disagree do so after a great deal of study? If they do not reach the same conclusion you do are they somehow less of a christian as you define christian?"

 

No one ever said that Ted Wilson is less of a christian than anyone else.    Isn't it possible that those of us that disagree with Ted have only done so after a great deal of study?  Are we any less of a christian because we disagree with Ted (and probably with you); or are we simply less adventist?

 

Being a good follower of Christ is much more important to me than being a good Adventist who blindly swallows everything proffered by denominational leadership.  Wouldn't Jesus and Paul be considered leaders of the "emergent synogogue" in their day?  The denomination (Judaism) seemed to think so.

 

As a reformed hippie, I still live by the mantra of "Question all the answers". 

[Gregory Matthews]

1. Downplay the importance of sound Bible doctrine:   Oh?  The foundation of all Biblical doctrine should be Christ.  Any focus on Christ is not a downplay of sound doctrine.

2. Ecumenical, seeks to break down barriers between faiths and denominations.  Ecumenical has a number of meanings.  On some levels it seeks to breakdown barriers that are not Biblical and yet maintain distinctives.  It does not always mean to break down all barriers. 

3. Strong reliance on Spiritual Disciplines over a deep study of the Word of God. Oh?  Spiritual discipline includes a measured directed study of the Word (the Bible) as opposed to simple light reading.

4. Neglect of Bible prophecy.  Perhaps true in part?  There is a reduced focus on esoteric prophetic ideas that have often in the past been proved false.  Rather there is a focus on changed lives today and the future shared with God.

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

The things you wrote in red and respond to are not quotes from my post; they are from Kevin's. Your comments after quoting me make it seem like you believe I made the statements in red.  That being said, I DO agree with Kevin.

 

Bonnie says:

"Is Ted Wilson part of that "sub group" of adventists trying to scare others into joining their movement? Or is it possible that those that disagree do so after a great deal of study? If they do not reach the same conclusion you do are they somehow less of a christian as you define christian?"

 

No one ever said that Ted Wilson is less of a christian than anyone else.    Isn't it possible that those of us that disagree with Ted have only done so after a great deal of study?  Are we any less of a christian because we disagree with Ted (and probably with you); or are we simply less adventist?

 

Being a good follower of Christ is much more important to me than being a good Adventist who blindly swallows everything proffered by denominational leadership.  Wouldn't Jesus and Paul be considered leaders of the "emergent synogogue" in their day?  The denomination (Judaism) seemed to think so.

 

As a reformed hippie, I still live by the mantra of "Question all the answers". 

Is Ted Wilson part of a sub group as described by Kevin? I haven't listened to all Ted Wilson has had to say about this topic but in the last couple of days I have done a bit of checking. So far Ted Wilson concurs with those that have been described as trying to scare people into the kingdom. What makes Ted Wilson any different than those described? By not endorsing the emerging church movement is he trying to scare people into the church?  If he isn't,why the accusation against "sub groups" whoever they are?

 

As to who is less christian I think that has been well established as a true christian doesn't go around trying to scare people into a "movement".That and other on flattering phrases have been used to define those oppose.

Are you comparing the adventist church to the synogogue of Jesus day?

[bonnie]

Ministry Magazine

The Emergent theology: Voices of confusion (Part 2 of 2)  John Jovan Markovic

 

The Emergent theology

As indicated in Part 1 of this series (March 2010), many Christians assume the Emergent church is about new forms of worship, and pay little attention to Emergent theology. The reality, however, is different. The Emergents are about changing Christian theology. Brad Cecil argued in 1997 that the Emergent church was not about the generational gap and a new style of worship, but “It’s about theology.”1Richard Rohr, the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation, moves a step further: in order to understand the big questions and concepts like love, forgiveness, suffering, death, and grace, Christians need new “software,” that is, a new way of thinking.2

The Emergent conversation provides a forum to challenge certain doctrines that do not necessarily withstand biblical scrutiny. For example, I, like the Emergents, also question the doctrine of the eternal suffering in the fires of hell. Yet, I find the Emergent theology disturbing for several reasons. For one, the Emergent theology is becoming less Christ-centered and more Spirit-centered.3 Second, Emergent theology is shaped and formulated more by personal and cultural experience, and less by the revealed Word of God. The gospel is being adapted to cultural context and downplayed into a mere good news of God’s inexhaustible love. Next, the Emergent theology increasingly—as it continues to emerge—incorporates Eastern notions of reality and spirituality.

Emergents who have emerged ahead far more than others, Brian McLaren and Richard Rohr for example, insist on the “both/and” paradigm of thinking that is supposed to teach people to stop being divisive, critical, and judgmental. Rohr does not apologize about telling Christians they need to learn to think contemplatively. He promotes an Eastern monistic mind-set.4 On the contrary, I find Christianity to be a rational approach to life and spiritual issues. God invites people to come before Him and reason together with Him (see Isa. 1:18). Paul advises young Timothy to correctly handle the word of truth (see 2 Tim. 2:15). John instructs his readers to test the spirits in order to find out whether the spirit(s) in question is from God or not (see 1 John 4:1).

The Emergent spirituality

Innovations in the Emergent worship-like spiritual exercises are introduced to induce spirituality. “Spiritual” or “spirituality” is probably the most favorite concept among the Emergents, directly contrasted to “religious” or “religiosity.” Common sense expects religiosity and spirituality to go hand in hand. So, why do Emergents contrast the two? Spirituality, rather than religiosity, I surmise, means to attract newcomers, estrange the same from the mother base, and then convert them into the new Emergent Christianity.

What characterizes the Emergent theology is its emphasis on catholicity, orthodoxy, and “embodied theology.” The last point is important. The “embodied theology” says that the Spirit present in the Emergent community shapes and formulates Christian theology. To be spiritual means to have a spiritual experience. If community members would have such experiences, that would indeed indicate the presence of the Spirit in the community. In other words, what manifests in the lives of the community members is the work of the Spirit. Hence, an Emergent would feel free to write, “God speaks to us out of our own culture and the stuff of our own lives, no less so than God speaks to us in the canon of Holy Scripture.”5 Hence, Bruce Sanguin, an author and minister, says that when he presides “at the wedding of a gay or lesbian couple,” he can “experience it as the ‘new thing’ God is doing in our day and age.”6

The “embodied theology” emerges when each member brings to the meeting their own story, their own theological understanding of a biblical text. Out of these individual insights, the “big story” of God emerges. Therefore, the work of the Spirit, embodied in the community, equals, or in some cases, supersedes the written Word of God.7

The Emergents claim that the Bible alone does not provide a sufficient guide for contemporary living, and that there is more to divine authority than what the Bible alone offers.8 It is not uncommon to read, “Sola scriptura also tends to downplay the role of God’s Spirit in shaping the direction of the church.”9 This shift of the repository of spiritual authority from the biblical text to the Spirit becomes problematic. It encourages the masses to rely on subjective experience rather than on the objective and reliable Written Word.

In the physical absence of Jesus Christ, the Bible remains the most reliable spiritual guide. According to Jesus (John 14), the task of the Holy Spirit is to lead people into a deeper understanding of the Truth, that is, the work of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Written Word of God. The Holy Spirit speaks for and testifies about Jesus Christ, the incarnate Creator God. The intention of the Holy Spirit is not to draw sinners to self but to lead them to Jesus Christ. “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God,” says the apostle John, “because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, NIV). The Emergents forget one simple but essential point of the gospel and biblical Christianity—it really is all about Jesus Christ, not about us.

The concept of emerging and the kingdom of God

The often-used metaphor about the Emergent church is the budding growth on a forest floor. According to Jones, the movement emerged in the 1990s, spontaneously, so to speak. “A new church is emerging from the compost of Christendom.”10 The public also came to believe that this “emerging” started in the 1990s. I have, however, come across works that called for and disseminated the idea of a new emerging church as far back as the 1970s.11 In fact, as early as the 1960s, some Christian leaders recognized that Christianity at all levels, in academia, ecclesia, and the public, was undergoing fundamental changes and new approaches were necessary to recapture the attention of the masses.12

The idea of Christianity “emerging” through time is directly linked with their understanding of what the kingdom of God is and when it will be fully realized. The theme of the kingdom of God, as central to the Emerging church, places much emphasis on joining God’s “community,” here and now.13 A lot of emphasis is also placed on channeling church and personal resources to the making of the kingdom of God here and now—a good and well-intended idea that sounds Christian. Moreover, the making of the kingdom of God is primarily the work of Jesus Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit leads people back t o Jesus Christ, the Savior of humanity and King of kings. Second, the final realization of God’s kingdom necessitates, first of all, the actual and final destruction of evil and sin from the universe—an event that has yet t o take place. A final destruction of evil and sin, that is, of Satan, his demons, and unrepentant sinners, to take place soon is not a pleasant theme for the Emergents.

To find a discussion of the need to abandon sin and a sinful lifestyle in order to enter into the kingdom of God is rare. For the Emergents, the kingdom of God is in the process of spiritual re-formation (notice the hyphenation), a spiritual evolution, here and now, as we speak. Accordingly, this spiritual re-formation—that is, this spiritual “emerging,” or “spiritual formation”— is the work of the Spirit, and a process that has been transpiring for centuries, and will continue on for centuries to come. McLaren states that humanity, as a whole, is spiritually re-forming toward the day when all humanity will finally become the kingdom of God, the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of the Lord.14 This teaching becomes troublesome on several levels: it misinforms about the true nature of the kingdom of God. It fails to warn of the importance of seeking repentance and Jesus’ grace, today. It lulls people into a false sense of security and hope that God, an “inexhaustible” love, will never carry out divine justice. It teaches that both sin and death are part of one and the same ongoing redemptive process. This emergent attitude toward human predicament resonates with New Ageism, the Baha’i teachings, Eastern monistic notions, and so forth. It is utopian and not biblical.

The Emergent attitude toward history

The Emergents are fond of going back to “ancient” or “vintage” Christianity. The “ancient-vintage” refers to the writings of the church fathers, not to the writings of the apostles and biblical prophets, as some may assume. The Patristic teachings and monastic way of life are being served as a new model of spirituality. This adulation of Patristic theology and insistence that God’s community has lived in the so-called Age of the Spirit for the last 2,000 years, necessitates an argument that the origins of the church are to be found in the first-century church of Antioch rather than the first-century church of Jerusalem.15 This may appear as a new revelation to some; however, this does not come as a new truth but a new repackaging of an old supersession doctrine arguing for a radical discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity. I find this development to be disheartening. The old Patristic argument that the church replaced the synagogue was the major component of a two millennia-long ecclesiastical hatred and contempt of Jews and Judaism, a direct precursor to modern anti-Semitism.16 Contrary to their insistence on tolerance and elimination of all forms of prejudice and bigotry, the Emergents may find themselves on the same path.

Though I find the work of Phyllis Tickle and Diana Butler Bass quite informative, their histories are highly skewed toward proving the “emergence” of Christianity during the last 2,000 years.17 Their work borders on revisionism of church history. In fact, church history was both progressive and contained false teachings and apostasy, corruption, and abuse of ecclesiastical powers. The pogroms and inquisitions were hallmarks of the church that opposed a search for truth. Also, for the Emergents to bash Protestantism for religious warfare, colonialism, and other evils of modernity of the last 500 years, is not uncommon. On the contrary, the Protestants stood up to the inquisitorial and oppressive medieval church. The Protestants played a major role in the overthrow of ecclesiastical and monarchial absolutism, and they contributed to the development of a constitutional model of governance that influenced England, the American colonists, and other parts of the world.

Another example of misinterpretation of history includes their insistence that changes brought about by the cultural shift from modernity to postmodernity demand that everything must change in Christian worship and Christian theology. 18Much indeed has changed in the last century or so, but those changes are related to modernization. Nothing, however, has changed when it comes to human nature and the human predicament. What changed is how we handle our affairs, not how we handle our sinful nature.

Humans have for centuries tried to resolve the puzzle of human predicament , and all human approaches—be they monistic, monastic, pantheistic, gnostic, deistic, Catholic, 19 Protestant , or Emergent, all have failed or are failing. The only reliable way out is the blueprint Jesus Christ left behind. The truth about Jesus’ grace and the moral standard of the kingdom of God has been revealed to us through the revelation of Yahweh and Jesus Christ, and recorded in the Bible. It remains constant and certain.

 

[JoeMo]

Bonnie,

Is the preceding post a quote from someone else or your own original thought? I notice what appears to be references numbers in the text.  If it is a quote, who is it from?  You should reference your sources if it is not "just your opinion".

[Sojourner]

Its interesting that in Australia "emerging churches" are openly rejecting the Prosperity Gospel movement after people have moved on and moved away from it. 

[bonnie]

Bonnie,

Is the preceding post a quote from someone else or your own original thought? I notice what appears to be references numbers in the text.  If it is a quote, who is it from?  You should reference your sources if it is not "just your opinion".

Ministry Magazine

The Emergent theology: Voices of confusion (Part 2 of 2)  John Jovan Markovic

 

The Emergent theology

The article is from Ministry magazine. Part 2 

[bonnie]

Its interesting that in Australia "emerging churches" are openly rejecting the Prosperity Gospel movement after people have moved on and moved away from it. 

Reading the statements from those that endorse this ,the prominent names and their backgrounds should raise a red flag. 

Many churches  as well as many names within our denomination are coming out against this whole thing.  What distinguishes the "hateful sub groups" that are trying to scare people?

All are raising the same concerns dealing. All are free to choose  but why the lambasting of motives by the "tolerant group"?

[Gregory Matthews]

In post # 14, it was said:

 

Innovations in the Emergent worship-like spiritual exercises are introduced to induce spirituality. “Spiritual” or “spirituality” is probably the most favorite concept among the Emergents, directly contrasted to “religious” or “religiosity.” Common sense expects religiosity and spirituality to go hand in hand. So, why do Emergents contrast the two? Spirituality, rather than religiosity, I surmise, means to attract newcomers, estrange the same from the mother base, and then convert them into the new Emergent Christianity.

 

The above, I believe, is a fundamental flaw in that it is a failure on the part of the author, John Markovic, to recognize how the terms religiosity and spirituality are being commonly used in our society today.  He demonstrates his error when he begins a sentence with:  "Spirituality, rather than religiosity, I surmise, . . . "   According to standard dictionaries, the word "surmise" is used it indicate a "guess," or a conclusion without sufficient evidence, or a conjecture.  In any case, his use of the word  surmise is an admission on his part that his opinions are not well founded.

 

The words "spirituality" and "religiosity"  are in common use today.  However, they have not developed a standardized meaning that is accepted by all.  It is therefore possible that the author is aware of some use of the terms that agree with what he has said.  But, that is not the more common meaning that is developing out of their use.  In its common understanding, spirituality does not require religion.  It is independent of religion.  It does not require any belief in a  supreme being of any sort.   It does not require any association with any organized denomination.  It does not require any set of specified beliefs. 

 

That may be contrasted with religiosity, which generally has both a set of beliefs and some sort od relationship, even if very loose, with some sort of organization.

 

A spiritual person may be concerned about the future beyond death, moral values and much more.  But, that concern will not be centered in organizations and their beliefs.  It will not be focused in a substantial way on any so-called Holy Book.  Yes, one may be recognized as good, but not as foundational and perfect. 

 

John Markovic may be a recognized expert in his field.  But, he is writing outside his field of expertise.  Expertise in one area of knowledge does not grant one expertise in other areas of knowledge.

[bonnie]

In post # 14, it was said:

 

 

 

 

The above, I believe, is a fundamental flaw in that it is a failure on the part of the author, John Markovic, to recognize how the terms religiosity and spirituality are being commonly used in our society today.  He demonstrates his error when he begins a sentence with:  "Spirituality, rather than religiosity, I surmise, . . . "   According to standard dictionaries, the word "surmise" is used it indicate a "guess," or a conclusion without sufficient evidence, or a conjecture.  In any case, his use of the word  surmise is an admission on his part that his opinions are not well founded.

 

The words "spirituality" and "religiosity"  are in common use today.  However, they have not developed a standardized meaning that is accepted by all.  It is therefore possible that the author is aware of some use of the terms that agree with what he has said.  But, that is not the more common meaning that is developing out of their use.  In its common understanding, spirituality does not require religion.  It is independent of religion.  It does not require any belief in a  supreme being of any sort.   It does not require any association with any organized denomination.  It does not require any set of specified beliefs. 

 

That may be contrasted with religiosity, which generally has both a set of beliefs and some sort od relationship, even if very loose, with some sort of organization.

 

A spiritual person may be concerned about the future beyond death, moral values and much more.  But, that concern will not be centered in organizations and their beliefs.  It will not be focused in a substantial way on any so-called Holy Book.  Yes, one may be recognized as good, but not as foundational and perfect. 

 

John Markovic may be a recognized expert in his field.  But, he is writing outside his field of expertise.  Expertise in one area of knowledge does not grant one expertise in other areas of knowledge.

This would have to be at the bottom of the lists of concerns compared to what the proponents of this movement have to say.

[phkrause]

How much of this is the latest attitude of some sub groups of Adventists to scare us into joining their movement. They have a history of "There are two movements, we are the true and so and so is false and if you are not with us then Satan is deceiving you with...." what ever their current flavor is.

 

We need to be careful, but we have to be aware that Satan attacks us from both outside but also from very conservative approaches that we end up trusting out of fear of them out there.

Kevin are you saying that Pastor Steve Wohlberg is from a sub group movement??

[bonnie]

http://archives.adventistreview.org/article/3383/archives/issue-2010-1516/the-emerging-church

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie has directed us to an article by Fernando Canale. He is a conservative member of the teaching faculty of the Andrews University Seminary. While one may disagree with his conclusions, his scholarship must be acknowledged. When he speaks, or writes, his arguments must be considered. Is he perfect and always 100% correct? No. No human is ever fully correct. In the above cited article, Dr. Canale says:

If you are among those Adventists using emerging-church resources, then I probably come across to you as narrow-minded. After all, you know there are good things in evangelical—even emerging—materials and resources. And you are right—there are some good things in these circles. Yet I would suggest, based on the evidence presented, that we should not simply “download” them into our minds, ministries, and churches. Instead, we should assess everything critically in the light of biblical thinking and the Spirit of Prophecy, retain what is good, and reshape it to fit the Adventist theological vision as presented throughout Scripture and conveyed in all scriptural teachings, principles, and doctrines. This critical process, however, requires that ministers and laity engage in a deep understanding of the history of God’s love in the great controversy, as revealed in Scripture.

I find the above to be of value on this subject. There are other good points that Dr. Canale makes. He correctly points out that the so-called "emerging church" consists of many aspects of belief and practice and that probably no part of it consists of all aspects. I might not agree with every point that he makes. But, I clearly agree with his focus on the Bible as the foundation for our belief and practice. I agree with his conclusion that God's people to day must find a way to reach a post modern culture in a Biblically acceptable manner. I agree with his conclusion that elements of the so-called emerging church may be appropriate and others may be inappropriate. Pick and chose carefully.

[Tom Wetmore]

I appreciate the balanced approach that assumes the intelligence of our people to exercise discernment. Some critics of anything untraditional, progressive, innovative, or any other new method or perspective tend to take an allow nothing approach that reject the whole if one flaw or error can be found. They end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. The end result is fearful confusion for our people and plays into the hands of the fear mongering label meisters. "Help" by disabling thinking...

[bonnie]

Bonnie has directed us to an article by Fernando Canale. He is a conservative member of the teaching faculty of the Andrews University Seminary. While one may disagree with his conclusions, his scholarship must be acknowledged. When he speaks, or writes, his arguments must be considered. Is he perfect and always 100% correct? No. No human is ever fully correct. In the above cited article, Dr. Canale says:

I find the above to be of value on this subject. There are other good points that Dr. Canale makes. He correctly points out that the so-called "emerging church" consists of many aspects of belief and practice and that probably no part of it consists of all aspects. I might not agree with every point that he makes. But, I clearly agree with his focus on the Bible as the foundation for our belief and practice. I agree with his conclusion that God's people to day must find a way to reach a post modern culture in a Biblically acceptable manner. I agree with his conclusion that elements of the so-called emerging church may be appropriate and others may be inappropriate. Pick and chose carefully.

The links to information on this movement are far to numerous to even begin to list.  Some of our colleges seem very enthusiastic as their list of speakers indicate.

From that perspective it is all positive and nothing indicates this train of thought........I agree with his conclusion that elements of the so-called emerging church may be appropriate and others may be inappropriate. Pick and chose carefully.

 

Andrews university information is a real eye opener as are some other college campuses.