UnGodly Holiness Part 4, The Danger the Emergent Movement Poses to Missionary Baptist Churches

Learning the hallmarks and modes of operation of the emergent movement is vital to maintaining the health and prosperity of the Lord's New Testament churches. While most American Baptist Association preachers are doctrinally sound enough to stay true to God's Word, the emergent influence that is so widely published through popular Christian authors that it can easily influence a pastor to lead his church into a direction that will dilute the doctrinal stability and harm the fellowship of the church.

The emergent's goal is to dismantle the church as we know it today, and replace it with a less formal, less authoritative body. It wants a church that establishes a dialog rather than proclaim a message. The emergent movement also wants a church that abstains from politics (thus offering no resistance to pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-family and anti-religious freedom legislation), elevates women to prominent positions (in direct opposition to I Timothy 2), and basically advocates that a church become everything that scripture told it not to become, all in the name of tearing down walls of empty tradition to reach the lost.

Most Missionary Baptist preachers see that agenda coming a mile away. However, there are two premises that the emergents put forth that tend to be Achilles heels to some ABA preachers and churches. (1) The fear of becoming inept at reaching a community for Christ and (2) Ironically, the pastor and church's commitment to scripture.

Change! Change! Change! Change you can believe in! The times, they are a changin'. Listen to the winds of change. George Barna wrote in Boiling Point that life in this world is changing at such a rapid pace, that change has become the one constant in our daily life. He also wrote that the younger generation has grown up knowing nothing but change, and the absence of change bothers the younger generation because they see it as a sign of stagnation.

Our nation's demographics are changing. Political structure is changing. Technology is changing how we do things. Think about it... how has social media (Facebook and Myspace) changed your daily routine? Recently, I chatted with a missionary who is on the field in The Phillipines. Twenty years ago, that conversation would have only been possible via a high-cost international telephone conversation, or by me going to the Phillipines or he visiting me in the states. A week ago, I got to see a missionary in Indonesia address a missions conference at Sublett Road in Arlington via Skype.

Values are changing. American's attitudes are changing. The priority of faith and the church are changing in the lives of people. People are busier, more self-absorbed, more opinionated, and unfortunately, less considerate and more rude.

The emergent will point to the rapid change in our society and say, "Look, to reach this new society, the church must change with it!" I'm not talking about contemporary worship vs. traditional worship... I'm talking in method of ministry and operation and even appearance. Terminology is also under fire. Now, the emergent disdains the title of "Christian" and opts for the title of "Christ follower." In my younger and more ignorant days (two years ago), I though this was cool. Now, it bugs me. The title of "Christian" was given to the believers at Antioch by the heathen because of their faith and devotion to Christ. Now, I am told we have to abandon that title because the emergents claim that people don't like Christians.

So the premise that the emergent puts forward is that society is changing, so the churches must change, or else the churches will become irrelevant and will die off with the last baby-boomer. This premise has scared some ABA preachers into leading their congregations into territory where their congregations are rightfully uncomfortable. Some have taken to cancelling services and replacing them with home Bible studies. While a church is free to do so if it feels so led, doing so with significant opposition leads to discord in the Body of Christ. I'm not saying the preachers who do this are emergent, I'm just saying they have been influenced by emergent thought. Home Bible studies are profitable... but perhaps it is best do so in addition to the current services being offered, instead of as a replacement to them. Hebrews 10:25 says "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day approaching." In other words, as you see the day of Christ approaching, get together more, not less.

The premise that God's churches will be left in the dark is flawed. (1) Jesus said He'd build His church, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, regardless of how many Facebook groups are out there. (2) God's churches have endured for centuries. Building styles may have changed, hymn books may have different songs, but the constitution of the church has not changed, neither has its mission. To insist that it all change now is ludicrous. Since the days of the Roman empire, the dark ages, the Renaissance, the Inquisition, Napoleon, American Revolution, Civil War, French Revolution, World Wars, Industrial Revolution, two Darin's on Bewitched, the Digital Revolution, and the so called "post-modern" society, churches have remained stable. They have worshiped by singing hymns, special music (it's in scripture), and sermons have been preached.

Churches actively engaged in mission work and associated freely to assist one another in the Great Commission. The world today is vastly different than the world 2,000 years ago, but the church, it's operation, mission, values and scripture, remain the same. Why change now?

The emergent will claim that church today is nothing like church 2,000 years ago, but the church 2,000 years ago would not be an emergent church. You don't think the Apostle Paul would have taken an opportunity to speak out against abortion and homosexuality on the floor of the senate? Go back and read your Bibles and see how Paul acted in front of those in authority. If Paul could have seen souls saved by influencing the government, he would have. Did Paul establish a dialog? Or did he preach the Gospel and establish churches? Churches today are much like churches 2,000 years ago. I can defend this, scripturally. Read the book of Acts. Churches were sending out missionaries, collecting money for the poor, spreading the Gospel, and associating one with another. They were organized bodies, had membership rolls, and were committed to a mission, just like the churches today.

The second premise of the emergent movement which is a weakness of Missionary Baptist pastors is ironically that pastor's commitment to scripture. The emergent, like I mentioned in a previous post, will point to the book of Acts and highlight all the things we do that are not specifically mentioned in Acts. The Missionary Baptist Pastor, desiring to stick to God's word and not tradition, is then less enthusiastic about defending traditions and customs not clearly spelled out in Acts. Thus, little by little, the actions and activities of the church are eroded away until the church finds itself in an identity crisis. This has happened before, but out of reverence to those affected, I will not discuss those examples here.

The premises of the emergent movement paint a nightmare scenario for most Missionary Baptist preachers... a lost and dying world to whom the church is ill-equipped to minister. The fear of that nightmare entices some pastors to take steps the emergent movement pushes. This should not be so. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, no matter the time period, culture, or social change. People today might be busier, but their spiritual need is the same. They might be pushier, but their need is the same. They might be angrier, but their need is the same.

In a time of constant change... don't let the emergent's desire for acceptance rob your community of the only solid Rock on which it can stand. Be the church. Worship God the way you can in your heart. Preach the Word, the way the Lord has called you to preach it. Reach out to people the way the Word, the Lord, and your pastors have taught you.

Hold fast the profession of your faith without wavering, for He is faithful that promised. Hold forth the Word of life, defend the faith once delivered to the saints, PREACH THE WORD. It is still God's sword, and His answer for a lost and dying world.

This should be my last post on the emergent movement.

UnGodly Holiness Pt. 3 - Rebels without a Cause

Zechariah 3:1-2 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: [is] not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father." - Jesus Christ in John 5:45.

One of the main problems I have with emergent Christianity is its hostility toward traditional Christianity. Visit any forum, blog, debate or discussion site, and you will find emergents who are unabashedly anti-church, anti-tradition, anti-leadership, anti-elder and anti-establishment. They question everything the church does from organized missions programs, associations, and even the structure of the worship services.

Noticeably absent from emergent literature and postings on blog sites and discussion boards are a clear set of principles and beliefs. So the nature of the emergent church is one of protest and accusation, not one of a constructive nature. So, the emergent church by nature is basically one that is set on protest against the establishment and questioning every practice in which God's New Testament churches have engaged.

The aim of this post is to highlight the hostility of the emergents toward Christianity, highlight the absence of a clear set of beliefs, and note the lack of scripturality and Spirituality in their movement.

The premise of the emergent movement is that modern Christianity has become pharisaical, hypocritical, and nothing more than empty traditions. They prey upon the errors committed by churches and Christian leaders.

The church, obviously, is made up of men, who still suffer from the sin nature and the temptations thereof, and so it is natural that errors will be made. By the vote of the church, or actions of the leadership, mistakes will be made, wrong decisions will be made, bad moves will occur. Doctrinal error will happen, practical error will happen, and leaders will fall to temptation. It's human nature. It happens.

Failing to see the dual nature of man, and the struggle that each Christian has within their own spirits and souls (except when it's their own struggle) the emergent will jump on any error, any sin, any wrong action, word, belief or practice, all for the sake of advancing his own agenda of deconstructing the church. His arguments are not one of "here is the way the Bible teaches us to do things," rather his arguments are, "look how rotten the modern church is. It needs to be changed."

I remember a few years ago. A dear brother in Christ, to whom I looked up at the time, was in the midst of what I believed to be a Spiritual struggle. He struggled at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning to write a sermon. Unable to get his message together, he aired all of his grievances on his blog (which has since been deleted.) A number of preachers jumped in and encouraged this meltdown, until a notable ABA preacher, Brother Bobby Sparks, stepped in and called the meltdown for what it was worth. The initial post challenged the 21 doctrinal statements of the American Baptist Association (which are all basically non-controversial to the learned Bible student), basically saying, "You can keep your Baptist doctrine, I like Bible doctrine." His insinuation was that Baptist doctrine was not Bible doctrine, and that insinuation seemingly infuriated Brother Sparks.

Brother Sparks is still a man to whom I look up. No man preaches the Gospel like he does. Anyone who heard him preach at the 2006 Missionary Baptist Association of Texas meeting in Longview would have to agree. However, less than a year after Bro. Sparks amazing sermon at the state meeting, several preachers, lay members, and self-ascribing emergents were on Bro. Sparks' case for his statements in response to the original meltdown posts.

The posts included such statements as "Who does Bobby Sparks think he is?" and "What has Brother Sparks done for the ABA?" "His degree isn't worth the paper it's written on." and so on. Bro. Sparks comments were not debated, only his credentials and personality. Basically, Bro. Sparks was under attack from that moment on, at least in cyberspace. THESE WERE PEOPLE WITH ABA BACKGROUNDS, who were preachers, lay members, and some former members of ABA churches.

Bro. Sparks has spent much of his ministry debating the Campbellites, so this sort of controversy had little effect on how he carried out his ministry. In fact, it probably barely registered on his radar. Bro. Sparks, you might say, is a big boy. I rehash all of this for the sole purpose of highlighting the hostility and animosity the emergent movement (of whom at least one of the participants of the discussion was a part, and I suspect several more were) has toward the traditional church. As much as I regret having gotten involved in the discussion, it was a learning experience for me. I began to see the enemy at work in our own ranks.

For the record, Bro. Sparks has spent his entire ministry of preaching and defending God's Gospel, salvation by faith through grace apart from works, preaching the Gospel to the captives in the form of debates, writing books that highlight how Old Testament worship pointed to the coming of Christ (which is very important), and I understand he even has become knowledgeable in tax codes for ministers and has made that knowledge available to others. Yet this man, in the course of that discussion, was regarded as the enemy. That basically sums up the emergent movement.

The emergent views the seasoned pastor as a lord over God's heritage. He sees the church's influence on our political processes (such as Focus on the Family's lobbying for pro-family and anti-abortion legislation) as harmful. He sees traditional worship as boring and unexciting, and thus aims to change that. He sees evening services as redundant and seeks to replace those with Bible studies. Back when the ABA Survey blog was still in existence, the notion was floated that a church could conceivable have only one corporate worship service per month and spend the rest of the month in small groups. They see formal leadership as a hindrance because they believe that post-modern individuals don't trust ordained leaders. They see themselves as Jesus Christ, and the New Testament church as Caiaphas.

The emergent would be perfectly content if all the churches in America sold their buildings, scuttled their missions programs, withdrew from the political arena, accepted a secular society, then worked quietly from their homes withing that secular society. Stuart Murray, author of Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land says the emergent church is widely opposed to the attributes of the traditional church, including being at the center of society rather than the margins. Satan also wants Christians and churches to withdraw from society and live on the fringes. It's much easier to discredit and disregard them that way.

Other similarities between the emergents and Satan include the constant accusations made toward the church and its leaders, and the hostility toward God's churches.

Emergents think formal organization is also a hindrance. In fact, having an organized belief system is also useless to the emergent, who seeks to establish a dialog rather than deliver a message. The problem with this viewpoint is that Christ came to deliver a message and complete a mission, not to establish a dialog. When God told His people in Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together," He was not asking them how they felt. He was telling them what He was going to do. He was going to cleanse them from their sin. No dialog. God gave us His message, and He commissioned the churches to spread that message and make disciples.

Perhaps the commitment to dialog and railing against the church can explain the absence of a clear belief system for the emergent movement. Christian scholar D.A. Carson wrote that the emerging church movement is primarily a movement of protest against their more conservative heritage. He concluded that emergent literature is more preoccupied with criticizing the church rather than offering a constructive agenda. In fact, the only thing an emergent will truly be dogmatic about is the need for contemporary worship service.

ABA, as well as most Baptist writers, write about the distinctions of the Baptist faith and use their research and study to affirm Bible doctrines. Emergent writers use their research to figure out why people are non-religious and seek out new ways to engage the unchurched in a dialog, conversation, or seek to interact with them via contextualization. When the focus becomes fitting in with the unchurched and being attractive to them, Bible doctrines and beliefs are abandoned, no message is conveyed, and evangelism and Bible study get reduced to "I kind of think this... but you have the right to your own belief."

Beyond the idea that church stinks, I can not find the central message of emergent Christianity. And I've tried. I've read some of the books, many of the blogs, and engaged a few online. Many emergents (and many Christians in general) don't even have a clear concept of what the Gospel is. The lack of a central message and mission relegates the emergents to being rebels without a cause. They don't like the way things are, they want to change the way things are and withdraw from the church, but they don't really know (as a group) where they are going. All they know is where they are going will be a magical land of authenticity, openness, dialog, equality, and emotional comfort. All of which are alive and well in the Lord's churches, but then again, who wants to wake up on Sunday morning?

The lack of a central message is indicative that the movement is not rooted in scripture. This is vastly different from B.M. Bogard's protesting against increasing infringements on church sovereignty back in the 1920s, or John Leland's railing against the rise of missionary societies back in the 1700s and 1800s. Both men had a core set of beliefs, that God commissioned the churches to carry out his work, not para-church organizations. They had a strict set of doctrinal beliefs, and preached and taught those beliefs. Anyone who has read either man's work will see that those beliefs were deeply rooted in their study of the scriptures.

Contrast that with the emergent's approach of studying the culture then looking for ways to blend in with that culture without violating an explicit Bible command. One example of this is the new rise in third-location churches, many of which meet in coffee shops. Now, scripture permits a church to meet anywhere it deems practical, however, the coffee-shop phenomenon was not born out of a study of the scripture, rather it was born of an idea that it would be easier to get people to show up to a coffee shop where food was being served than a brick building with a steeple. In fact, many of these third-location churches even reject the notion of calling themselves a church.

Notice the difference between studying the scriptures and letting the practice grow out of that, as opposed to studying the culture and building a practice around that. The emergent movement, by practice, lack scripturality because they seem to have no interest in deep studies in the scriptures. Rather, they look for permission to fit into a culture that they have deeply studied. The premise and starting point are flawed.

While it sounds nice to be "outwardly focused," the truth is we are to be focused on God. Any time our primary focus shifts away from God, we are drifting into idolatry. This drifting leads to a lack of spirituality. While the feeling in the room of an emergent gathering might have a spiritual feel to it, the fact that they are operating outside of God's will renders them unspiritual. The greatest action by the Holy Spirit, the empowerment of the church in Acts 2, happened as the church was praying to God and seeking His will, not as they were studying their culture.

The fatal flaw of emergent Christianity is that it seeks to deconstruct the church and remake it after its own image. God never called anyone to remake the church after his own image. We are to join the church and its mission to make disciples in all the world. If the emergents really want to see God move, they'd be well off to get on board.

UnGodly Holiness: Part One - Deconstructing the Church

Have you ever stopped to think about how much of what we do in the way of corporate worship and ministry as a church is actually spelled out in scripture? Does scripture mandate three-four songs, an offering, a special music, a 30-45 minute sermon, an invitation and dinner on the grounds? Are youth programs found in scripture? What about associations?

You may have thought about these things, and you may have concluded that even though there is no scripture to mandate reducing most hymns to three verses, God has given us the freedom to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. God has mandated our worship, our assembling, and our mission, and given us the freedom to do so as He calls us and as He has given us the ability.

Your conclusion on Biblical mandates for youth programs may very well come from verses such as "train up a child in the way he should go." Your conclusion that church associations are scriptural may come from the Jerusalem Council. Many have asked themselves these questions, and many have come to the conclusion that what we as Baptists do is well and good in the eyes of God. One of our members at Grace Pointe once told me (we were discussing whether or not scripture mandates that we vote to receive members) that if a practice has been around long enough in the Lord's churches, it may very well be the way God wants it.

Others have asked these questions, however, and come to a different conclusion. They have concluded that since there is no Biblical mandate for church buildings, it is sin to spend so many resources on acquiring and maintaining worship facilities. Since there is no Biblical mandate for the traditional format for worship, perhaps we should dump our worship traditions and start over. Since there is no Biblical mandate for church associations the way we use them (three messengers per church and a missions program, plus a publishing house) then we should just dump that and get back to basics. These have rejected the church the way most Baptists have come to understand the church. They claim that the younger generation is turned off by the church, views the church as irrelevant, and to reach the younger generation, we must shirk the "unnecessary burdens of the Pharisaical mindset of the church and get back to what Christianity was meant to be." There is no formal church organization. If you gather, you are part of the church. Baptism is de-emphasized, and even structure is a thing of the past. Two Christians sit next together at an airport terminal waiting for their flight, there's a church.

Popular Christian writers have also latched onto this trend, claiming that the post-Modern culture (watch that term, it is very popular among the Emergent Church movement) has rejected all of our traditional values, and to reach them, we have to leave behind our traditions and start anew. Otherwise, we'll miss the younger generation and God's church will die off as it's members age and pass away.

I have weighed these arguments, I have measured them, and I find them wanting. There are those who constantly scream out "change!" Should we find ourselves blindly following these calls, we will find ourselves just as disillusioned as the American electorate in 2008-2009.

My arguments against the Emergent belief system and the "post-modern" Christianity belief system is based on the fact that we have seen these arguments all before. (Well, maybe you did, I wasn't born yet). Didn't we hear all this back in the 60s when the Baby Boomers were coming of age? Didn't we hear about how the younger generation was dumping the traditional values of their parents and we would have to change and get back to basics to reach them? Didn't we hear that if we didn't change, the Baby Boomer generation would be a lost generation and the churches would die without them? Who makes up the majority of the membership today? Baby Boomers. Mega churches have flourished, false religion has abounded, but the Lord's churches continue on today. Today, we hear that the church will die with the last Baby Boomer if we don't dump all of our traditions to reach the younger generation. See the irony?

Furthermore, the idea that all church activities that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible is sin is flawed thinking. Read the book of Acts the way it was meant to be read. The Emergent Christian will read the book of Acts looking for the absence of the things we do to point out the sinfulness of doing what we do... like singing hymns, supporting our clergy, sending out missionaries, and gathering at the associational meeting to raise funds for missionaries.

The Book of Acts, popularly referred to as a how-to book for churches, is in fact historical record written by Luke under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to show how God can spread His Gospel if the churches are obedient to Him. A closer reading of Acts shows a church that gathers... often. This church sat under preaching, sometimes for hours (to the point that men were falling asleep and falling out of windows.) Imagine how your average Emergent would react to that?

Furthermore, the Bible clearly mandates singing hymns, spiritual songs, and Psalms. I & II Corinthians clearly gives instruction for orderly worship and formal membership. If a church deems it orderly to purchase or build a worship facility, sing four hymns every Sunday, have a special or two, and learn from a 30-90 minute sermon, then that is no more sinful than if an emergent church decided to go all vegetarian for their post-Bible study meal.

While some who follow the Emergent theology ignorantly, earnestly seeking God's will, the fact is those who propagate this theology are truly seeking to deconstruct the institution of the church, God's institution, the one He bought and established, the one through whom the Gospel would be preached to all nations. This attempt to deconstruct the church is veiled in a pseudo-holiness, a holiness that says "we are so holy that we no longer need the church." This holiness, which has a form of Godliness but denies the power thereof, is in fact, unGodly.

The intent of the Emergent church to deconstruct God's church is clearly spelled out here. Wikipedia describes the Emergent church as "...disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community."

They seek to deconstruct modern Christian worship, because for some reason these "holy" Emergents can not worship God to the words of Amazing Grace (unless it is cleverly rearranged to sound like "The House of the Rising Sun.") They can not worship in an environment that is decent and in order. They seek to deconstruct modern evangelism (door-knocking and witnessing to strangers in public) because they don't want to be offensive. After all, Jesus wouldn't be offensive, would He? (The Gospel is by nature offensive, because it is through scriptural preaching and teaching of the cross that man becomes convicted of his sin. When a man is brought face-to-face with his sin, he in his natural state becomes offended because his sin-nature sends him into self-justification mode).

They seek to deconstruct the modern Christian community... which contrary to popular belief does in fact center around the church. There are worship services, Bible studies, Bible schools, Sunday schools, Awanas and Discovery, youth programs, choir programs, and we haven't even gotten into the heart of the church, missions and ministry. Do those who seek to deconstruct the Christian community really seek to deconstruct the mission efforts of that community? Do they seek to deconstruct the benevolent efforts of that community? Can a loose-nit band of friends calling themselves an Emergent church really spread the Gospel with the same resources and God's power as an organized church?

Jesus told His disciples, "Upon This Rock will I build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." He also promised His church that "Lo, I am with you alway, even until the end of the world." Could these promises have been kept true had the church been nothing more than an aposthetic brand of phariseeism, even if just for a few decades? No. If the true church ever ceased to exist, then these promises could not have been kept, which means that the premise of the Emergent movement is flawed from the beginning. Church is Biblically mandated. True churches have existed continually since Christ was on earth. Those churches follow God's direction, meaning the things they do are not empty traditionalism, and carry far more weight with God than the Emergent's unGodly holiness, a holiness that is by definition man-centered.

The Emergent latches on to that which he likes, that which he finds pleasurable and comfortable, and rejects that which he does not. That is a self-centered, a man-centered way of thinking, not a God centered way of thinking. So their practice, mindset and perceived holiness is done apart from God, and thus, is an unGodly holiness.