MacArthur: The Emergent Church is a Form of Paganism

Dear Brothers and Sisters, I've been watching this movement for some time now and I'm sick to my very soul. Worst then all that's going on, is what GODS people are not doing. What can be done that is respectful to our Lord JESUS CHRIST in combating this heresy invading GODS church? I have recently learned it's invading(once known solid churches) in my very back yard.
It's over whelming to many of us and we need instruction. Praying for wisdom. Debra

this is a good article, but the problem remains....you will always have people that have a shallow faith and not a real relationship with the living God, simply because they refuse to live their lives according to the Word of God.
Unfortunately, churches that actually preach the Word of God and are not like your traditional church get lumped in with those that are preaching humanism and paganism....

This article saddens my heart.

While it is clear there are problems with emergent theology, I am disappointed by the misuse of the "Hybels' confession." Willow Creek Church's in-house survey of their membership disclosed nothing more than that new believers were not becoming "self-feeding Christians" (I'm not sure what terminology they used). The only "confession" was that the church was not effective in training their members in spiritual disciplines (e.g. personal prayer time, daily devotions, fasting, evangelism, personal Bible Study, etc.). The majority of their members were relying on the church's staff to "spoon-feed" them. That is an issue in MOST churches. I have seen a couple of articles reference this "confession" (like this one) and they twist it to make it sound like Willow Creek has been a colossal failure. Not. All of our churches would do well to evaluate our effectiveness in training our members to be disciples. If ineffective, we too should say, "We're doing it wrong and need to change!"

I think MacArthur is right on! We need to guard the truth first and foremost. What if Jesus was concerned with what the world thought, instead of confronting the Pharisees? There are times you have to take a stand for the truth. Especially when it's about the gospel! Many of these emergent churches are filled and led by unregenerate people. The only reason I say this is when you read and know the Scriptures, it becomes evident when someone doesn't understand the Bible. It's not prideful to know and understand the Bible. An example of not understanding and using the Bible: Hillary Clinton recently took several Biblical passages out of context to work for her political goals, while speaking at Rick Warren's church.

Articles like this, and the vicious comments posted here make me ashamed to be called a Christian. I sure hope there aren't any unbelievers that find this article, or the comments posted here. The mud-slinging, regardless of who is right is sickening. Shame on anyone who engages in a "he's right, you're wrong" conversation. It gains nothing, except provide further evidence to an unbelieving world that Christians have nothing better to do than bump their chest and claim they know everything about God.

For the sake of those who don't know who Christ is, and what he did for them, STOP ACTING LIKE PHARISEES.

While I highly value orthodox Christian belief, I’d be guilty of pharisaical behavior if I painted my Christian brothers and sisters with such a wide, condemning brush as this article has. Have the authors taken the time to speak directly to the people they’ve maligned? What will those outside the faith think while we sling mud at each other? How is that a demonstration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

I fear we elevate our orthodoxy as paramount to orthopraxy instead of seeing them in tandem. Right belief and right action—both are important. There was a time in my life I spent maligning those within the church whose beliefs differed slightly from mine, believing mine to superior. I treated them with disdain, in a sense nullifying all those correct thoughts with my haughty actions.

The longer I walk with Jesus, the more I see how deeply interwoven His love must be in my character. The more I must offer grace to everyone—outside the church and inside. The more I realize how pea-sized my brain is to comprehend the width, depth, and splendor of God. In that hard won humility, I find more joy being Jesus to whomever He sends my way to love—even if they differ theologically from me.

The odd, amazing thing is that I have friends throughout the Body of Christ, representing various denominations and movements. And I love them all. His Body is composed of various parts. What kind of Body would it all be if it only had a head? A foot? The sheer variety is what makes the Body beautiful.

I hope you will consider the beauty of the multifaceted Body of Christ (which is far more Chinese and African and Indian and Middle Eastern than American Evangelical) when you churn out another article.

Respectfully,
Mary E. DeMuth
www.marydemuth.com
Author: Ordinary Mom, Extraordinary God, Building the Christian Family You Never Had, Authentic Parenting in a Postmodern Culture, Watching the Tree Limbs, and Wishing on Dandelions

MacArthur is biblical and the emerging church doesn't want anything to do with Scripture. So, MacArthur is willing to tell it like it is. Everybody wants to hold hands and play nice, but when you deny the authority and teaching of the Bible you have departed from Christ. The only Christ is the Christ of the Bible. The emergent church is a conversation without any authority because they do not submit to the word of God but make it up as they go.

I agree with the criticism of the article. MacArthur is stereotyping and mischaracterizing both the seeker sensitive and emerging church movements (which are by no means the same, and are inappropriately lumped together). He doesn't get it - either what the Emerging Church is about or what Jesus Christ is about.

Len Sweet notes, "God sent a person, not a proposition." If your standard is presenting clear propositions, you are condemning Jesus because he wasn't much into that. The Emerging Church tends to look much more to the approach of Jesus Christ than to the approach of someone like MacArthur. The point is to actually follow Jesus Christ, and I've gotten involved in an Emerging Church because it seems to be better focused on that than most fundamentalist or conservative evangelical churches on one end of the spectrum and liberal churches on the other end.

I read "a Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren. In no way do Mr. MacArthur's negative comments reflect the beliefs stated about Christ and the "emerging church" ( which in and of itself is not a movement but, a conversation)that are in this book. Growing up in an evangelical church, it was always us and them. We had the truth and everyone else was wrong. The core beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection as stated in The Apostle's creed are reinforced throughout the book.
Perhaps guidance and leadership rather than criticism should be the path taken by these critics.

I Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined not to know any thing among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

After all, without the death and resurrection we all might as well give up...

I have always enjoyed reading and listening to John MacArther--and I will still enjoy to do so--but I find his article far too narrow to be sincerely considered. Grouping an entire movement of sorts into three names does not do justice to the emergent church movement. I realize the article was only intended to be brief, but I feel that MacArther has done himself more harm than good by his narrow cynicism. I also find his ecclesiology very narrow and somewhat off base.

Your link to more feedback on this article isn't working. I get an error when I go to:

http://www.crosswalk.com/root/pastors/11560481/page0/comments/more/