Landmark Baptist

Just wondered how many of you are familar with the "Emerging Church" movement? From what I've read, it is the next "wave," following close on the heels of the "Purpose Driven Church" movement. (See Eph. 4:14) I heard a sermon recently entitled, "The Emerging Church: Revival or Return to Darkness." Clearly, the "Emerging Church" movement is a return to the spiritual darkness that had such a powerful grip on much of Christianity before the reformation. Many believe that Satan will use this movement to bring many "evangelical" churches back under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic church. If this is true, the end must be near.

I have recently found that there is a return here in Ontario to the 'house church' movement. There are many small groups that do not have the financial capacity to pay a pastor or to pay rent in a facility, they instead meet from house to house, a seemingly true NT model. Has any one else encountered this move?

Hey Sean, I have seen and heard of house churches quite a lot recently and in the past. More recently though. It is scary for a lot of people because its more traditional than what they like to think of traditional as being.

Bro. Mike.....I think you are refering to the "Emergent Church" not the "Emerging Church" . The two philosophies are quite different and it is emergent that I think you mean.

Jon,
I didn't realize that they were different. How so?
Mike

Bro. Mike

Here is a link to a you tube video. Mark Driscoll does a really good job at explaining the differences between Emerging Church, House Churches, Emergent Church and Missional Church. To some all these guys fit in the same category.......but the truth is just like back in the day pastors should know the differences between Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ etc. We should know the differences even if they are minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI

Four of the main differences between emerging and emergent are that the emergent churches are more liberal in the areas of substitutionary atonement, authority of scripture, exlusivity of Christ, and orginal sin. Emergent is by far the most liberal of the four he speaks of and are the ones I think you are referring to.

Dan Kimball is part of the emerging church......if you go to his blog I think you might be surprised at how conservative he actually is. If you scroll down his blog his sermon on hell is very very good and approaches it in an intelligent and yet scriptural manner, very convicting!

In Christ,
Jonathon D Smith

Here's the address for Kimballs blog

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/

Jon,

I checked out Dan Kimball's website, as well as the website of his church (Vintage Faith Church), and while he may not be as radical as others in the movement, he is definitely a part of the Emerging (Emergent) church movement. I was looking through the photo galleries of his church and saw many "images" and "icons" that you would expect to see in a Catholic church or in an Orthodox church, but certainly not in an evangelical church. I also viewed a video on YouTube where Kimball was talking about how the unsaved world "loves Jesus" but despises Christians (Bible believing Christians). This, of course, is a falsehood. Yes, the unsaved world does despise Christians, however, they don't love Jesus. First of all, the "Jesus" whom the world "loves" is not the Jesus of the Bible. Secondly, the reason the world has an unfavorable view of Christians is because of the One Whose name we bear. Jesus said in John 15:18-19, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." I still don't see any difference between the "Emerging Church" and the "Emergent Church," other than the fact that one may be a little more radical (and unbiblical) than the other. In either case, it is a disturbing and spiritually dangerous movement.

God bless.

Mike

The following link will take you to a YouTube video about the Emerging (Emergent) Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm0D6MtwUCU&feature=related

The following link is a discussion about the Emergent (Post Modern Church):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc&feature=related

God bless.

Mike Withem

Bro. Mike, I don't know how to convince you but the "emerging" church and the "emergent" church are two different things.....I am not trying to say one is scriptural and one is not......just letting you know that they are different from each other as an assembly of God church is from a "Jesus Only" church. I am as Landmark as you are (just not as traditional) and I fully understand the errors of many groups. In no way was I trying to say one was scriptural and the other not......just that they are different in muliple ways and levels. I shared 4 main doctrines with you and you still choose not to see that there is a difference. That is your choice.

In Christ,
Jonathon D Smith

Bro. Mike,
I would agree with what you are saying in your original post if you are refering to the "emergent" church. However, I don't think the "emerging" church is what the Devil is using to bring america back to a pre-reformation existence. I have talked personally with Dan Kimball. The use of icons and symbols are actually a move toward traditionalism that his church uses to reach the culture where he is at. If I am not mistaken he works in a California in an area where there are multitudes of catholics.
It is more of an outreach and an effort to redefine symbols in an effort to reach people for Christ. Just like missionaries used the Mistletoe and which was a pagan symbol and by redefining its message used it to proclaim the gospel to scandinavia. America is no longer a Christian Country and if we are going to reach people with the gospel and Landmark doctrine we are going to have to start thinking like Missionaries. We are going to have to stop expecting people to bow to our white rectangular steeple topped early 19th century piano and hymn preach from behind a pulpit methodology before they can come to Christ and be a Disciple. I don't agree with Kimball on alot of things but I think you are talking about "emergent"churches and not "emerging" churches. Other than that I challenge you to find one area of doctrine that you are more Landmark than I am!

In Christian love,
Jonathon D Smith

Are you sure he didn't mean that they "Love" Jesus like "I Love Ice Cream". Our culture does use the word love to denote a lot of different meanings? Instead of looking for error you could be looking for intent.

Jon,

I don't see the use of "icons" and "images" as a move toward traditionalism, but rather a move toward Catholicism, even in California. If we follow your line of reasoning, we would be justified in bringing Hindu gods (idols) into our church, if our church was located in a community where a lot of Hindus reside. Surely you don't agree with this, do you???

If you get a chance, watch the following video and let me know what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn_AeINu22Y&feature=related

God bless.

Mike

Bro. Mike,

I don't get you Bro. Mike? I watched the whole video.......You are using a guy that is an outright universal invisible church heretic, who doesn't understand scriptural baptism, church discipline, closed communion, church authority and church perpetuity. You are going to use his comments to show me that using a band in worship, not wearing a shirt and tie, and not having two services on sunday is unscriptural or unlandmark and is letting sin in the church.....I say this with all respect but that's absolutely illogical.

There is nothing in this video about icons, or symbols? The nativity scene is an icon, candles are an icon, stain glass windows are an icon, the cross is an icon (and it was originally a pagan symbol for death) a flame, a dove etc. etc. do you have any of those in your church or on your bible? I could make a long list of icons and symbols that are in many of our churches that have non-christian origins.

The only point I'm making from the beginning is that "emergent" and "emerging" are not the same thing......I don't claim that either are in any way totally scriptural and you end up implying that I'm ok with budhist idols in the worship at the church I'm a member of?

Did you even read Kimballs sermon on hell? and how to be saved? I don't think you did because if you did your comments that he is leading an "emerging" church movement to a pre-reformation catholic existence would be more laughable than you could ever imagine. In essence that would be a theology of indulgences for salvation/no translations of God's Word in the common language/purgatory/including a doctrine of persecuting all those that teach salvation apart from pedobaptism etc. etc. Do you see how laughable that is!

I think in your zeal you are not well informed and influenced by people who have major chips on their shoulders and/or are not informed themselves. Like I've said before, I think you are doing a great job where you are at, your church is mission minded, you have faithfully served for many many years, you and your church are soul winners, you minister in a traditional setting and way that is appropriate for reaching people where you are at. I'm sorry if you felt someone or many have put you down because you have a smaller church/traditional church but I am not one of them. I believe that if that works then do it. I believe if it doesn't then do what works to reach the lost without compromising on doctrine.

If you want to debate on whether Landmark Doctrine demands only one methodology and manifestation of ministry that is one thing but don't imply or accuse me like so many have that somehow I'm a universal church/ idol worshipper/ impatient/intolerant/ number hungry/desirous of pastoring a mega-church/ heretic just because I'm not a traditionalist.

Thanks,
Jonathon Smith

My logic doesn't lead to bringing idols in to worship......my logic leads to taking things that the lost are familiar with that aren't sinful and using them to communicate Christ if applicable......that is a far cry from your assumption!

By the way is having a nativity scene idolatry? The Virgin Mary would be in it and you wouldn't want a catholic bowing to it in the middle of the third verse of "Beulah Land". Who is Beulah?(tongue in cheek).

Jon,

My only purpose in asking you to watch the video was to raise the question, "What is the purpose of a church?"

As far as the "Emerging Church" being different from the "Emergent Church," the way I see it, the Emerging Church is like a caterpillar. A caterpillar is not a butterfly (at least, not yet), however, one day it most surely will be.

By the way, Dan Kimball defines the church as follows: "...any person, anywhere in the world who puts faith in Jesus." Talk about universalism!

http://vintagechurch.org/VFCDoctrinal%20Statement.pdf

Listen also to what he believes about hell: "...there are a literal heaven and hell...although we approach the topics of the afterlife and end times with great mystery and wonder." (In other words, you can't be dogmatic about it.)

One more thing. I am absolutely "blown away" by your defense of using "icons" and "images" in worship. This goes far beyond being "non-traditional" (not wearing a tie, etc.). Apparently, you have been greatly influenced by Kimball and perhaps others who make up the "Emergent Church" movement.

God bless.

Mike

Jon,

I almost forgot.

Main Entry:Beulah
Function:noun
Date:1684

: an idyllic land near the end of life's journey in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

God bless.

Mike

Paul ate meat offered to idols but said he wouldn't do it if it offended a weaker brother.

I am not defending Kimball or anyone....All I have ever said is that emerging and emergent are not the same thing!

I have never defended his position on universal church. Just like you never defended Dewaay, Kjos, and the video guy on their multiplicity of heresy including universal church.

You never answered my question about nativity scenes? Is that idolatry?
It's a statue of the virgin mary and people worship her statues.

Could you also tell me exactly which icons and symbols that you are talking about? Please be specific as Catholics use many symbols and icons that we do as Baptists. Please be specific.

Bro. Mike,
this is what you wrote

"...there are a literal heaven and hell...although we approach the topics of the afterlife and end times with great mystery and wonder." (In other words, you can't be dogmatic about it.)"

You don't think that there is any mystery and wonder about heaven and hell? How do you jump to that he is saying "you can't be dogmatic" from that?

Are you on a witch hunt......If I were you I can guarantee you that you can find more dirt on these people bashing the "emerging" (not emergent) and "purpose driven" church stuff if you were willing to look. Why not pick on them they are just as influential and sometimes more heretical?