I would ask that this question be answered openly and honestly by those who disagree with the “emergent” camp (as you have labeled it)

WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR SOMEONE BEING CLASSIFIED AS EMERGENT?

I am asking that those who normally post here would not post or respond to this, except those who have disagreed with many of our views here.  I think this is extremely necessary in this day and age. I have been praying alot about this lately. I feel like we are at a crossroads in the church of historical proportions. Some of us are very much excited as we take the whole gospel into the next generation. Others fear that this new movement is heretical and a threat to the truth of the gospel. However, if the term “emergent” is going to be placed on us and others, I think it is our right to know what exactly we are being called (since it seems you use it more than us).

So…

• the comment section here is just for those who disagree with ministries they have labeled emergent
• Please do NOT make off-topic comments. We have not yet deleted any comments, and we would like it to stay that way (UPDATE by Chris L)
• I would ask that sarcasm be left at the door, and the real issues can be heard.

Mike’s response to our article “Being Offensive is Being Odedient?”

Friends sent me warnings about what was going in the emergent camp about this.

No one here (to my knowledge) is part of the emergent camp

At first I was a bit confused, because I could not recall saying anything that would offensive to anyone who sought to obey God in all things. Then as the day went on I began to see that the focus of their outrage was the fact that Christians are called, by Jesus, by God, by the Holy Spirit, to be obedient in all things. Why would that invoke such rage.

That would have never invoked “such rage”.  We all agree that obedience to the Word and God is the highest priority in our lives.  What invoked the response was that you said if we are being obedient, we would naturally offend people.  You basically suggested that if we are not at odds with the majority of Christians in our churches, we are not being completely obedient.  I believe that your exact quote was

If you are being obedient to God and you are actually drawing closer to the majority of professing Christians then you only THINK you are being obedient to God.

Our beef was not with the fact that we need to grow closer to God.  Our beef was the fact that many of us are in community with godly people.  That many of us hold dear our fellowship with other believers and fathers in the faith.  To suggest that one should not draw closer to the family of God as they grow closer to God is not only unbiblical, but almost heretical.  It is your martyrs complex that concerns us the most, not your call for obedience.  The gospel should not always offend.  In fact, I believe that it should be the exception.  If you look through history, the only ones who really were offended by the gospel were the pious religious leaders.  They, in turn, set the government and culture against the Christian community.  The gospel, at it’s best (in its entirety) is attractive to a lost and dying world.

It seems that Ken’s latest whipping boy seems to be McManus and the leadership team of Mosaic. I have too much to say on this subject, but we will address it as it arises. Ken’s latest attack is against Eric Bryant, Mosaic’s executive pastor. First, in classic Apprising style, Ken sites himself as the source for his knowledge in every single link but two! That means that 78% of Ken’s knowledge is coming from himself.

My biggest beef is that Ken now dictates what people and churches believe and don’t believe. Ken sites this passage from Bryant’s new book, Peppermint Filled Pinatas:

The world too often sees the invitation to connect to the church as irrelevant or at best as involving a cumbersome process. People have to learn our religious language, sing our songs, and discuss our topics. For those who make the effort to connect with us, we reward them with rules, traditions, and conditional acceptance, yet Jesus offered grace, forgiveness, and love. Rather than religion, Jesus offers relationship. As part of the body called the church, we need to strive to eliminate barriers that keep others from connecting with our community and connecting with Jesus. (61)

Ken’s response:

O, I invite you to also note carefully where we see yet another serpentine swipe at the Church of Jesus Christ. Correct, Jesus doesn’t offer religion and neither does the Body of Christ who represent Him. We preach His Gospel of a new birth that comes only through going to the Cross with Him and literally dying to self by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The truth is at the very core of this Mosaic man-love is a disdain for the doctrines of grace. I tell you in the Lord this is going to be the focal point of the coming battle within evangelicalism.

Ok, so Ken first attacks Bryant for his views, but then he agrees with him! Notice that he agrees with Bryant that Jesus doesn’t offer religion. However the next thing is whats gets me the most. Bryant clearly states that the church needs to show that Jesus offers grace, forgiveness and love. One would logically follow that Mosaic would hold those values. But, apparently Ken knows more about Mosaic than it’s executive pastor. He responds with the statement that Mosaic has a disdain for the doctrines of Grace. Huh?

But, I am sure that Ken has actually gone to Mosaic and experienced this disdain for the doctrines of grace before he would print such an offensive thing. I mean, “Mosaic” has never written a book, so he can’t judge it’s doctrines based on that. The only doctrinal statement that Mosaic endorses is The Baptist Faith and Message (which happens to be the same doctrinal statement that Ken’s church endorses as an SBC church). However, Ken obviously believes that the more offensive you are, the more godly you are, even if the offense makes no logical sense at all.

I will end with the same statement Ken ends with… And you can’t say you haven’t been warned.