As I've read this post, I have a couple of questions that come to mind. The first few are in response to Pilgrim. I will post other questions in another response to the original post.
Quote
Pilgrim said: One must first assess whether or not those in the Emerging Church movement are, in fact, "preaching [teaching] Christ". Personally, I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to. (Gal 1:7, 9)
As far as I can tell, they proclaim Christ crucified and that He came to save sinners. What is unbiblical about that? My question in response here is: What is your understanding of the Biblical Christ? I don't ask this as a point of debate, I am just curious as to where you are coming from and how you can say that "I cannot find the biblical Christ being preached nor taught in any of the Emerging Church literature, video clips, etc. that I have had the extreme displeasure of being exposed to".
Quote
Secondly, "methodology" isn't a matter of personal preference (adiaphora) or expediency (pragmatism)!! The Bible not only sets forth the truth objectively (dogma/doctrine) but also the principles of application of that doctrine. God hates vain worship, aka: "will worship" (cf. Gen 4:3-7; Ex 20:25; Ps 127:1; Isa 1:12-15; Ezk 20:39-42; Mal 1:6ff; Matt 15:7-9; Col 2:6ff; 1Jh 2:15-17; et al)
What constitutes vain worship though? Just because something doesn't look like how we think it should look doesn't make it vain. What if a liturgical service is vain worship? What do we do then?
Quote
I'm assuming here that the above quote was made in sarcasm, right? But let me set the biblical record straight for you since you have admitted that you are still assessing the situation, which means you have not been able to discern the evil that is driving and has totally engulfed the Emergent Church movement and its adherents. The Church's primary responsibility is to "feed the flock", i.e., to offer up spiritual food so that the children of God may be complete. Secondarily, it is to reach out to the world with the proclamation of the great salvation which is in Christ. Eternal life takes precedence over temporal life. (cf. Lk 12; Matt 6:33) This is not to say that the people of God should not have social concerns, e.g., feeding the poor, helping those in physical need, etc. But it is NOT the primary concern. What good does it do to clothe one who is naked yet speak nothing of that which will effect that person's eternal destiny? The Emergent Church has bought into the Liberal's "Social Gospel" to a great degree, which is no gospel.
I will agree with this assessment, but the emerging church doesn't tell people to not share Christ with those they are helping. They just emphasize the importance of Jesus' social teachings. They are important, and all of us in the Christian community (even emergents) could stand to be a bit more charitable. If we don't clothe and feed homeless people, then we can't properly share the gospel with them because we aren't giving them what they need at that moment. It is possible that they are already Christians in the first place.
Quote
What McLaren &co. are doing is deliberate, calculated and well planned. They know exactly what they believe and what they hope to achieve, both of which are contrary to sound biblical teaching.
I really highly doubt that they are out to destroy us and our faith. This is nothing more than an unfounded personal attack on the men, and these have no place in the Christian community.
