BeachOfEden

Healthy Faith Vs Unhealthy Faith Sadly, it is the unhealthy faith structure that steers a church to becoming spiritually abusive and legalistic, even cultic in behaviour. An understanding of unhealthy faith can help us to recognise it in our own lives and to help others who have developed this problem. I strongly recommend the books listed at the end of this article. Unhealthy Faith Unhealthy faith is a destructive, dangerous relationship that allows the religion, the church, the beliefs or the group, not the relationship with God, to control the person’s life. It is a defective faith and has an incomplete or contaminated view of God. It is faith is used to avoid reality and responsibility. It has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with men and women who concoct a god or faith that serves them rather than honouring God. Harmful faith is an excuse to put off dealing with lifes pain, to “wait on God” for “direction” rather than getting on with life or to abuse one’s wife because she must submit to him as if he were God. It provides a distraction through religious ritual and “realigaholicism.” Faith becomes unhealthy when individuals use God or religion for profit, power, pleasure or prestige. These four ambitions are the foundation of any dependency. But they must be totally separated from faith. Each time faith is distorted or minimised because of these four ambitions people are hurt, some are killed and many are left to suffer alone after families, friends and fortunes have been lost. Variations of Unhealthy Faith Unhealthy Faith can have many variations. For example one could have driving religious activity. They work in the hope that God will change reality. These people are running from the pain of life. Alternatively one could be spiritually lazy and put all responsibility onto God for everything. e.g Wanting God to instantly heal a marriage rather than working on yourself to change. It is easier to pray and do nothing more than it is to face one’s responsibility and seen help to go through the pain. Another variation of unhealthy faith is extreme intolerance. These people will denigrate the faith of others if it doesn’t suit their model of faith. They insist that everyone else worship God their way, attend their type of church, judge others by the standards THEY say God has set. This kind of intolerance of others is common amongst those with unhealthy faith. As long as they believe they are doing what God would have them do, they don’t hesitate to push their ideas and beliefs on others. They control others by demeaning their beliefs,and the practice of their faith. They create a fake faith and a legalistic characterture. Giving to get back is another variation of unhealthy faith. This is more like a materialistic investment than an act of worship. God cannot be bribed but many people attempt to do so. Obsession with self is next. They are poisoned by their constant focus on their own needs, hurts and desire for relief. There is little room left for truly worshipping God and they are never truly i for you is to have faith in what He does rather than in Him. Self-obsession is gross sin and the greatest poisoner of faith. The addiction to the religious high comes next. Trusting God can and should relieve one of being overwhelmed with problems or needing all problems resolved immediately. However, unhealthy faith that is an emotional frenzy that robs real faith. These people will manufacture religious experiences and spiritual frenzy to provide an adrenalin rush that makes them feel good. T Their intent is not to worship God but to alter reality. They are obsessed with the quick fix to life. The Religaholic Running from life is the everyday reality of the religaholic. In our fear of living forever in our pain or being overwhelmed by it we often run into the nearest type of relief available -even unhealthy faith to some the religaholic will look good. They are at every church function, preaching to all they meet. They look like the “perfect” Christian in all their works. Inside they have a poor self-image and don’t feel worthy of God’s love. They experience the thrill of being valued by others but don’t feel valued in themselves. They may admonish those they don’t feel are walking right with God (to their standards). They may berate their friends and relatives or rebelliousness against God. They will “bible- bash” and shame people into doing things their way. They may constantly demean and condemn those who don’t measure up. Just like a substance-abuse addict they will blame everyone and everything else for their problems in an attempt to not face themselves. The unhealthy faith becomes entrapped and enmeshed in an unhealthy involvement in church and church life. Convictions become addictions and the pains of life are eased with excess activity. Rather than becoming dependent on God the person is dependent upon work and the comfort the experience when they become too involved to have to cope with their problems. The peace they find is not the peace of God by the peace that comes from the numbness of avoidance. Worship and praising God is a wonderful experience. However those who have an unhealthy faith will use this to achieve emotional highs and these highs become the focus of the experience rather than God being the focus. Rather than bringing them closer to God this type of experience only serves to further alienate them from God because they can only feel good when they are having the emotional high and there is nothing in between. There is a line between these two extremities. At one end there is a faith in a God who is loving, caring and all- powerful. At the other end is faith in a God who is ineffective, uncaring and powerless. Those who have faith in the latter seek a God who can mend every situation, avert all pain and hurt and heal all disharmony. Healthy faith knows the balance between ungodly independence that leaves a person overwhelmed from the need to be self-sufficient and ungodly passivity that leaves them doing nothing unless “God has spoken” with personal direction. God and enslavement to striving to please God. Giving money to honour god and giving money to buy God’s favour. When it is becoming a futile attempt to be perfect. When dependency on God has become a way to avoid dealing with tough life situations. When it is right to follow a leader and when it is dangerous. Trusting God With Healthy Faith It is the issue of moderation. True faith, real and pure faith, is not practiced in moderation. One cannot trust God too much, or seek God too much. Faith that knows only a little about God is also a form of unhealthy faith and the most destructive faith is having no faith at all. All of us have different elements of unhealthy faith at some time in our walk. However, it is being willing to look inside, to allow God to remove these from our lives, that helps us grow into the people we were meant to be, to have a healthy faith that trusts God implicitly without fear or favour. God’s presence should produce a firm grasp on reality and the hope that reality can be faced with all its accompanying distress and grief. Each time a negative event occurs they know that God can use it to bring greater faith and a deeper peace from trusting that He is in control. But what people often hear in church is entirely different. They hear that belief in God or acceptance of Christ will cause all problems to vanish. They learn that the present problems will go away once you have turned your life over to Him. This is not truth. The life of faith is not sugar coated or pain free. This misconception can lead to an unhealthy faith or the extermination of faith entirely. These people have a false expectation of God. Individuals willing to take a second look at God and faith are in for a painful experience. Be assured, the pain is less than that experienced in continuing to use God rather relate to God. It is less painful than realising they are afraid and continuing to live with that knowledge. By making the effort toward healthy faith means they will go through some difficult times to find what God designed for a relationship with Him. But a relationship based upon pure and healthy faith leads to contentment and joy. The Freedom Of Healthy Faith Healthy faith has a respect for others. It doesn’t attack the faith of others out of insecurity. With security dependent upon god there is no need to feel threatened. Different viewpoints can be seen as the result of different people at different places in their faith walk. People of different denominations or even differing factions within a denomination will not be perceived as the enemy in a healthy faith system. When faith reaches this level in frees us to serve god more fully. This freedom moves us to serve others rather than working to serve ourselves and our own needs. BeachOFEden: This Discribes Social Justice: Where healthy faith exists the needs of others are met. The widow and orphan is cared for; the hungry are fed; the disabled to helped; the sick are visited. This healthy faith also gives us the freedom to be vulnerable. Being vulnerable means being real. Healthy faith frees us to come out of hiding and share ourselves with others. Healthy faith leads to trusting God, others and ourselves. Published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. Recommended Reading:“Faith That Hurts Faith That Heals” - Arterburn &“Combatting Cult Mind Control” - Hassan.

Well, with Prog Christianity..what I observe is that there are all this stories of someone previously having been a hard-shelled fundamentalist..and they would not bend or listen to our cases for social jusitces...then all a sudden something happens to like one of their children..like maybe a good daughter might have been discrimanated against in fundie college or or the like or maybe their son learns he is gay...then when it actually effects 'THEIR' own life..they have a change of heart. So I think such as these stories can be shared on the web and in newspapers and maybe others who have experienced like-minded sanarios might be inspired..In contrast with the far right...these stories of a change of heart are NOT based on theological FEAR tactictis to win over converts..and I think that's the difference..Rather they are won over by a change of heart..when they suddenly see injustices placed upon loved ones.

Beach: Thus, we should always ask the question, what is the fuel behind one's zeal to to and convert someone? Cynth: Why??? The answer is generally fear - in this case, often linked with compassion. Beach:I Disagree. As Religious Addiction 12 Step author Leo Booth points out..that there IS '2' different 'kinds' of FEAR. Healthy Verses UnHealthy..and this also goes from the religious relm. UNhealthy morbid religious FEAR can drive religious zealosts to extreme unhealthy behaviors. Just as extreme, over-the-top zeal for reward can drive religious zealouts to unhealthy behaviors..Hummm.perhaps this also would make an enteresting topic, "Healthy Verses unHelathy Fear."

Thus, we should always ask the question, what is the fuel behind one's zeal to to and convert someone?

..So that just the point, Ath, YOu DON'T HAVE to Go to 'THEIR' sites....causes sooner or later a fundamentalists will ALWAYS come to OURs. Why? Because, as fundamentalists, they are on a mission....to educate ( in 'their' opinion) all of us lead-astray heathens liberals back to the straight & narrow (minded) path. What fuels this passionate mission? Ego? Fear? Yes, a little of both. Ego because of the "Members-ONLY" salvation mentality that they have come to embrace. Fear because of the "Left Behind"/and/or Hellfire/and/or End of the World" threats their fundamental church teaches..which in turn is DIRECTLY conected to their "members-ONLY" salvation belief system. Question: How come Progressives do NOT go SEEK fundamentalists out and try to PREACH to THEM? How come this does NOT seem to be a part of OUR mission? As far as Ego goes...Progs have NO "Memebers-ONLY' salvation theory. As far a Fear goes...Progs have NO "Left Behind" nor "hellfire" no "End of the World" threats being preached from our pulpits weekly so as to ad fuel behind any "mebers-ONLY" salvation theory.

Well, for one, merely if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example... Example#1. the day before Christmas, 2004 I happen to stop at a certain health food store. After shopping, i come out and what do you know, there is 5 of my mom's JW friends, and one of the more passive aggressive of the gals, come up to me and starts asking if I would like her to have her re-enter me back in their fold. Example #2. One time I am on here and I am talking to either you or des about how how certain fundi groups bann women from being elders/pastors....when someone who is devote Catholic horns in on our conversation and proceeds to explain to US HOW and WHY the Catholic Church fathers do not allow women to be priests. Now, let us examine example#1. Here I am minding my own buiness, shopping for food when a handful of JW's happen upon me when this one JW gal starts trying to recruite me back into their fold. Question: Did 'I" ask her to do this? Did I give her ANY indication that I 'wanted' to be recruite back? And again, perhaps more importantly, does this women really CARE what "I" want or do NOT want? From my point of view, this is what i call being invasive. Now, let us move on to examine example#2. I and either you or Des are having a discussion being Progs and we are discussing fundi churches policies of banning women from being spiritual leaders...when all a sudden a fundamental Catholic jumps in the conversation and proceeds to tell us why the Church Fathers of the Catholic church don;t allow women to be spiritual leaders. Here again, as with the above example, did either YOU, I or Des ASK this person or requests THEM to tell us all this? Was there ANYTHING that lead this person to conclude that ANY OF US 'WANTED' his view or take on this? And thirdly, again, perhaps more importantly, did this person really CARE what the rest of US WANTED? Again, I see this as this person being invasive.

"Incidentally, the benefit of being able to appreciate that such a person could genuinely, responsibly, hold this belief, is that you can sensibly argue with them about the actual theological issue, without detouring into flaming and name-calling -- and probably have a better chance of actually convincing them that you're right! And if not... well, you save yourself the ulcer and lockjaw." Well, Fred, I honestly belive that the JW that my mom is devote to, will NEVER EVER altered or change it's view on women and NEVER let them be pastors/elder/preists....like many of these other fundamental faiths we speak of here. Dispite my strong DISagreemnts with JW's on this issue (women's equality IN the church) as well as their "members-ONLY" salvation theory...(thee '2' main DISagreements I have against all the other fundie religions we have all spoken of here...) I NEVER tried to write to the JW's or confront them face to face and try and make them see my views on this. I don;t see all of this as being a matter of humans MAKING other humans SEE something true..rather it's about God MAKING someone see something..and that's between them and God. If Jerry Felwell wants to preach that these Huricanes all occured because we all refused to become Southern Baptists (or as he would pefer to refer to them as "THE REAL Christians...) Then that's between him and God. Now, I may indeed think Felwell is a real ass...but No human can expect to write to Jerry Felwell and tell him that he is a self-righteous pharisee ass and get anywhere with a person like this..No human change him. I neither feel it is my desire not job to "try and show JW's or any other fundie group that they are wrong. Here? yes, we can speak of it..but I don;t go over to "THEIR" sites. Rather, what my DESIRe and HOPE is..is that I desire and wish that the JW's and all other fundies would simply NOT proceed to tell me their views on all this..especially when I did not ask them and moreover, i make it known to them I am NOT interested. All you Progs here, know the drill, a fundie tries to ask you why you don;t concure with their church and when you say something, like, "I don;t agree with your views on not allowing women be pastors or elders..._" then they proceed to preach at you and tell you their whole view..which NEITHER ASKED for NOR WANT. I hate it when an over-zealous JW or fundie of ANY type tell me that "I" don;t understand the Bible teachings on these issues and proceeds to tell me their whole hoop-la by yanking scriptures out here and there about why they don;t allow women to be preachers. I already KNOW ALL this and YEAH, I STILL DISagree with 'their' fundamental interpretations on the issue.... This is like if you were an Amillennialist and a SB goes, "Oh well, obviously you don;t understand the Bible and how to read it properly. Now, sit down here and "I" will proceed to show you how and where the 'RAPTURE" is real and how my church teaches this.-" Now, the questions would be..... Do you ASK for this? Did you give any indication that you WANTED to hear their view? And forth, do they care that you don't want to hear this? Are they even aware that you already researched ALL this, and yes, you DID STILL come to this conclusion? It is most likely a given that each and everyone of us Progs wish and would surely like our perents, friends,ect to switch from being fundamentalists christians TO becoming Progressive ones....but NOT because they have some grand fear that they shall face eternall demantion or the second eternal death if they don;t. rather, because simply by so doing we figure the friction between us and them and basically everyone NOT in 'their' church would end. That we know that 'if' they become Progressive then they'd be more more likey to stop harassing their their gay children and grandchildren, that they stop preaching sexism in the name of the Bible to women, that they stop using fear threats of the end of the world to try and bring people to church and keep them in there and that they'd stop fearing that all their neighboring Hindus and Buddhists were going to hell.

Fred: "Let me go out on a limb and take this thought a step further. What about a person who has honestly searched the scriptures and her heart, and genuinely comes to the belief -- not out of superiority, or hatred, or bigotry, but out of prayerful consideration -- that pastoral leadership is not a viable option for women?" But how can we KNOW it was DONe prayfully or scripturally and NOT in bigotry? What if..they truely DO pray and DO search the Scriptures...but still see in there what they want and this want may not honor the Golden Rule? For example, let's replace this thing of women and make it Jews or Buddhists. What if a consevrative Christian honestly DOES pray AND research Scriptures but says with conviction that he SEES and has PROOF that God REJECTED the Jews? Or Belives that Gaundi IS going to hell? What do YOU feel about this? Now is this a mere sincere conviction or is it bigotry? What if an elder in my mom's JW church says with conviction that he belives ALL Non-JW's will not get into paradsie? Is this a sincere conviction? What if he says he prays on this issue and researches the Bible? He he a bigot? Here are '3' examples to examine: 1. A Evangelical Protestant says he belives Gaundi's going to hell cause he was not a Christian 2. A Catholic claims that the Catholic church was THEE church upon which was set upon Peter, whom in turn the Catholic says all popes come from 3. A Jehovah's Witness elder says he belives that all non-JW's will be in paraside 4. A Seventh-Day Adventists claims ALL that worships on Sunday instead of Saturday are NOT true Christians. Now, with each of these individuals and their statements, how would you define each? Is each four merely stating a sincere conviction? Or are the discribing bigotry? Furthermore, how would EACH ONE OF US Progressive Christians on here view "EACH" and "EVERY" four? Would be be more generous in our views towards one or more and yet not others? And if so, why? What would 'I' think or each of these? I wouldsay that EACH of these indiviauls regardless of faith group backgound, TRUELY belives that his or her conviction is both based on Scripture and prayerful conclusion and that EACH truely belives this..but still, as an obsevor their statements appears egocentric. I'm not saying I fall into this category -- I don't, in fact -- but would you agree that there is a big difference between a person like this, and the stereotypical, misogynistic, "Shut up, woman, and bring me my dinner" type of chauvinist pig? Like I said, I'm not asking you to agree with the belief, but to expand your horizons and perhaps appreciate that a person could hold this belief without being a hateful bigot. I know that this is a very hot-button issue for you, so I'm not saying it won't bring up strong feelings. Incidentally, the benefit of being able to appreciate that such a person could genuinely, responsibly, hold this belief, is that you can sensibly argue with them about the actual theological issue, without detouring into flaming and name-calling -- and probably have a better chance of actually convincing them that you're right! And if not... well, you save yourself the ulcer and lockjaw. Either way it's a win. Just a thought... des Yesterday, 12:56 PM Post #29 Group: Members Posts: 812 Joined: 8-January 05 From: New Mexico Member No.: 273 Well let me also say that taking it from the theoretical to the actual, that actual people who really believe in more evangelical/conservative views are not necessarily bigots either. I think that bigotry is an equal opportunity employer if you get my drift, and doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, national origin, and actual theological views. I also think there are conservatives that will shove religion down throats and those who wouldn't dream of it. (The Great Commission says nothing about shoving. :-)) Otoh, there are liberal/ progressives who are annoying and insensitive in spreading their own views. Don't believe that? Look at aspects of any of the women's, gay rights, conservation, etc. movements. There are also pushy elements in some of these. And yes, I agree that conservatives can take a "women not pastors" or "homosexuality is sin"-- no, I don't AGREE with those views, but they can take them from an honest position of really feeling that is what the Bible says. Do I think it is a harder to be neighborly and caring and welcoming to homosexual people, say, with that view? Yes I do. But I have read all sorts of things lately that indicate that some in the conservative movement are quite aware of this discrepancy.

Ess 1:4: "The Earth Was Not Created Simply For Nothing, but was created to be inhabited."

Actually this is a good point Darby brings up that I was thinking of....when a person creates a quiz or survey and and it is trying to determine whether one is fundamental or liberal..we must ask, in what sense, do they mean, fundamental? In the sense that one believes that Christ REALLY DID raise from the dead? Or...in the sense that they do NOT allow women to be preachers? For example, if you were a moderate Luthern you would most likely belive that Christ DID raise from the dead but would also likley believe that women SHOULD be allowed to be preachers. I don;t think it fair to lable a person a Fundamenbtal christian simply because they believe in mircles of the resurrection...and thus place such a believer on the same level as a bigot. Maybe start a new thread on this very subject?

I can't rember who it precisley was, but someone on here said something about maybe "We ( meaning Progressive Christians) could teach fundamentalist who come here some enlightenment....or in other words, they were saying maybe over time the Progressive, non-fundie, "My church is better than everyone elses!" mentality would slowly melt away...or something like this.... In other words, they are sugesting that maybe if fundies hang out here they will somehow magically see the light and we can make them turn Progressive. Humm.. wouldn't this be the same as what the fundies are trying to do US but in reverse? I don;t desire to try and do this myself. Sure, I wish they would change, on their own..but I don;t want to try and coex them or whatever. Coexing is uslaly based or motivated by fear..which I don;t relate to in Progressive Christianity.

This is my Progressive belief.... Some say that when you die..you (A) Go to heaven ( Are resuurected on the new earth © You simply cease to be So, which do "I" think is right? (D) ALL of the above. If God belives you to acceptable for heaven and that's where you want to go...then you'll go there If God deems you are acceptable to live on the new earth and that's where you want to go..then you will If only want to live this life and you do not wish to extend this life..then God will honor your wish.

Yes, these types of positive stories should be told more often!

DAKAR, Senegal - Hundreds of young men decked with tinsel wander outside Senegal's mosques, hawking plastic Christmas trees. Women pray to Allah on a sidewalk where an inflatable Santa Claus happens to be hanging. Senegal may be 95 percent Muslim, but it certainly knows it's Christmas. In fact, for this nation of 12 million it's a national holiday. Blame it on globalization, which has turned the West's yuletide icons into a worldwide commodity. Or the Internet, or Hollywood, or the availability of travel that allows new generations of Senegalese to sample Christmas at close quarters. But mainly, Senegalese revel in the trappings of Christmas because they can and want to. Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet, but don't generally celebrate the date of his birth. Many Muslim societies discourage Christmas hoopla. But Senegalese say they have a long history of tolerance and coexistence with Christians, so why not share Christmas? "Officially, we Muslims don't celebrate Christmas. But the Catholics are our neighbors. So, we all celebrate all the religious holidays," said El Hadj Diop, 60, sitting in front of his African antique store. "We share the same houses, even graveyards," Diop said. "It has been the same for years." Islam arrived at this western tip of Africa hundreds of years ago, borne across the Sahara by slave and spice traders from the north. French colonialists with Bibles came afterward. Now, many practitioners of both faiths have adapted their religions to local mores. Few Muslim women in Senegal wear head scarves or cover up in robes. Nightclubs party until dawn, although the drink of choice is more likely juice than booze. BeachOfEden: And here's the key point why these Muslims and Christians get along so well...neither the Muslims here or the Christians here are extremist far right fundamental. Unlike in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where images of humans are taboo, Senegalese Muslims paint pictures of their spiritual leaders on the sides of buses. Most of Senegal's Christians live in the south, far from Dakar, and the capital has only a few churches and nothing resembling a nativity display. But the government has strung lights across thoroughfares, including one that passes the city's main mosque. Here "Jingle Bells" lilts from radios as the call to prayer booms from minarets. Hawkers hang long strands of tinsel over their ears as they wander the streets looking for buyers. Others carry gaudy blowup Santas. An African Santa in a fuzzy white beard sits at a supermarket as tourists snap his picture. Christians say they welcome the solidarity and repay it by partaking in Islamic holidays. "People here believe in God; it's what nourishes us and binds us," said Eric Midahuen, a Christian who works in a spectacles store next door to Diop's antiques shop. "It's our tradition, this cohabitation. When we're born and baptized our Muslim neighbors are there. They help us all the way, even into the grave," said the 40-year-old father of two. "We're all the same before God, who allows us to recognize him in all others." BeachOfEden: Excellent! True Progressive outlook..no one claiming in haughtyness to have aquired all the copy rights to God..and claiming 'ALL' 'OTHERS'..to be doomed. This serves aa a GREAT lessons for all. Diop echoes many of his countrymen in saying Muslim extremists elsewhere are falsely interpreting the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and sullying Islam's reputation. BeachOfEden: And the same can be said of Bob Jones' and Jerry Felwell's of America! "The Quran says Muslims mustn't force their religion on others. Aggression has no place in Islam," he says. BeachOfEden: Agreed. Or using theological scare tacticts of hellfire, getting "Left Behind" or Armageddon to scare people into converting. Indeed, Senegal is a peaceful oasis among some strife-torn neighbors. It's a budding democracy under the motto "one people, one goal, one faith," but doesn't decree which faith that should be. Secularism elsewhere may mean the freedom not to celebrate a religious holiday. In Senegal many interpret it to mean they should celebrate all of them. "Here in Senegal, it's a secular country. Everyone wants to buy cakes and gifts. We respect Christians and they respect us," says Fatou Mata, 40, a mother of two. And she faces the yuletide pressures familiar to parents everywhere: "If my kids don't have a present on Christmas, they'll cry."

What about when we die we die? This would be no resurrection.

Well, I believe that part one of Christ's rein began when he was resurrected to the right hand of God..and at this p[oint this became the heavenly part of Christ's rule..or that is, at this point the heavens were renewed..thus The New Heavens began.... but that part 2 of his rein...that is..the renewl of the earth has NOT yet began aka The New Earth..and is yet future. I believe that when Christ comes he will rein over the earth for 1,000..of which I believe is a literal 1,000..at the end of this 1,000 years the restoration of all life will be complete and the Devil will be destroyed. I 'think' Christ's rein will be spiritual FROM heaven...but I think it might be true that he would actually come on the earth physically..as the Abraham Faith Church says..but..either way...I am cool with it either way...whether Christ's merely rules invisiblly from heaven or whether he would actually come ON earth physically..either way I am open to. The important part for me is: (1) The physical earth is NOT literally detroyed..rather the planet is spiritually cleansed..and the restoration of ALL life...NOT just human...ON earth..everything becomes eternal ( including wildlife, animals and nature) Acts 3:21......The whole universe becomes eternal... ...and... (2)A FAIR & INCLUSIVE resurrection during the 1,000..rein of Christ over earth..and that this to me means...ALL good-hearted people....be they Hindu, Buddhists, non-Christian as well as christian and that this is NOT about only this or that group or denomination being saved..rather that ALL get a fair chance.

I was checking out this religious quiz on what type of Millennialism are you? It's by the same person as the religious quizes on What Type of Theology Are You? And so on..but...the problem with this quiz....or more so..the basic problem with the belief choices in the field of Millennial studies is that basically you only have '3' choices: (1) Pre-Millennialism (2) Post-Millennialism and (3) AMillennialism I am NOT AMillennial or Preb..or whatever it is called..the type of liberal view where everything in the Bible is viewed as only in the past.... But I am posively NOT either Post or Pre..because both of these invlove a belief in the rapture..and I don;t even belief in a "rapture" at all... My view of Millennialism is more liken to the Hopi or SunBear's...but I don;t know of any theological name given for such millennial beliefs. Anyone else feel like they don;t relate to any of these millenial beliefs either?

Of all the religious quizes I have seen..this one seems to be the best of them all..thus far....as for this quiz being flawed....well, I was wondering how the quiz creator concludes what is "fundamental" or not. Like I was wondering, if the quiz creator created this quiz in such a way that if you answered that you thought the mircles in the Bible WERE REAL instead all symbloic..if THIS would cast you as a 'fundamentalist'. Also, if you were like me and voted yes, that you though all races and women WERE 100% equal..then shouldn't this have a giant bearing on how LESS fundamental you are? In other words, if this quiz is saying that if you believe that mircles are real then you are a fundamentalist..then this would unforuantly explain why I still scored 25% fundamental... However, if this quiz were to judge you as being fundamental based on how highly you believe in equality for all..then I should not have scored a 'fundamental' at all...But each of you likely might have been thinking the same thing with your own results.

Aletheia, do you know how to create these quizes? Maybe you can create one so people can find out what type of XJW they are;) PS. What IS 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan????

Thanks for posting this, Ath! I had beem searching for just such a quiz..but had not been able to find it myself! Here's my results:) You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. 82% Emergent/Postmodern 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 50% Classical Liberal 43% Modern Liberal 43% Neo orthodox 29% Charismatic/Pentecostal 29% Reformed Evangelical 25% Fundamentalist 21% Roman Catholic

QUOTE(BeachOfEden @ Dec 19 2005, 11:32 AM) However..the fact that this whole movements states that is does NOT claim absoltues...is reasuring. I mean will you ever hear such fundamentalists as the Southern Baptists Convention, Assembly of God or JW's state that they believe that there is NO ABSOLTUTES? FredP: "Well, Emergent folk aren't saying that there are no absolutes -- they're saying that we have to be a lot more humble about them, because there are many factors that influence, and limit, our knowledge. " Understood. But even this is a great improvement, don't you think? Maybe this distinction helps: it's not that there are no absolutes, but that there is no purely rational, objective certainty about them. It does help and I for one could surely embrace this as a vast improvment. QUOTE(BeachOfEden @ Dec 19 2005, 11:32 AM) ...Still, such doctrine debates like trinity are SO ingrained in the Evangelical tradition..that even if one claimed to fuly emerged beyound egocentritic absoute claims...could they they accept non-trinitarians into their emergent groups? Could they accept a Liberal Luthern who does not accept the rapture belief and so on? It is an interesting question to consider... FredP: "I think it's likely that such a person would be accepted; the question is whether that person would feel spiritually and theologically at home. And that depends on the person, and how far they are located from the theological distinctives of the church." True. "For example, a person who believes the gospels are essentially biography, but contain some theological embellishment, will probably feel at home. " Like a Progressive leaning towards Moderate. "However, a person (like me) who believes the gospels are essentially allegorical and symbolic of spiritual realities (especially the key texts, like the virgin birth, baptism, temptation, passion), but contain some historical references, will probably not. Not because I'd feel unwelcome, but simply I wouldn't be sharing some very basic assumptions." Makes sense. It may be like the Christian UU's I spoke of and how they discribed feeling at the liberal but deeply pro-trinity-based Episcopaian churches...I 'might' also feel this way if I was attending. FredP: " I've been reading posts and articles on the McLaren board Aletheia posted (www.anewkindofchristian.com), and honestly, I find myself unable to resonate very strongly with either emergent Christianity or the conservative criticism of it." Hey Fred, what do you think of the idea of posting some of these artciles on that site as threads on here? Or maybe just choose the main quotes from them on here and then we can all comment on them? I would really find that an interesting conversation, and also we'd learn alot about the Emergent church and how it 'might' or 'might not' compliment Progressive Christianity. FredP: "In a postmodern context, evangelical Christianity could now freely and justifiably carry on in its distinctive belief structure without the need to appeal to rock-solid epistemological foundations like warrant, justification, rational criteria for validity, etc." Humm..that is true that all conservatives seem to do this.

Fred: Indeed, as the article points out, most of the movement's leaders have "emerged" from evangelical Christianity, and so it still bears that imprint very strongly. It's just that I no longer have much attraction to evangelical Christianity in any form -- not even a culturally-sensitive, inclusive, postfoundationalist one -- so the movement really feels somewhat beside the point for me. I can not deny that the mere fact that these individuals all emerged from EVANGELICAL and even FUNDAMENTAL backgrounds (of Protestantsim) makes me cautious. But then again, haven't nearly all of us Progressive Christians come from some sort of previous fundamental background? This can either lead to a great insight for a Progressive Christian...or it could serve only for some to be a great false front to try and trick others into more far right thinking merely packaged in "Seeker-Senistive" wrapping paper. However..the fact that this whole movements states that is does NOT claim absoltues...is reasuring. I mean will you ever hear such fundamentalists as the Southern Baptists Convention, Assembly of God or JW's state that they believe that there is NO ABSOLTUTES? This very concept would be impossible for such groups...Still, such doctrine debates like trinity are SO ingrained in the Evangelical tradition..that even if one claimed to fuly emerged beyound egocentritic absoute claims...could they they accept non-trinitarians into their emergent groups? Could they accept a Liberal Luthern who does not accept the rapture belief and so on? It is an interesting question to consider...

Cool. Thanks! This Emergent Church sounds like the idea that I was wishing for in my head..where you take the contemporary approuch from the Seekr-Senstive Church..but minus the "Memebers-ONLY-salvation mentality more often than not attacted to the Evangelical Protestant churches.

"read Brian McLaren's book "A Generous Orthodoxy" I think it will answer your questions." It sounds GREAT. This Brian sounds like my kind of Christian:)

Here's that Great artciel that GreenParty gave us a link to. Let's examine it.... What Are We Talking About? At the heart of the Emergent Church movement—or as some of its leaders prefer to call it, the “conversation”—lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is “emerging.” Christian leaders must therefore adapt to this emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation. Gosh. This discribes what's SO wrong with JW's. What Characterizes the Movement? Protest It is difficult to gain a full appreciation of the distinctives of the movement without listening attentively to the life stories of its leaders. Many of them have come from conservative, traditional, evangelical churches, sometimes with a fundamentalist streak. Thus the reforms that the movement encourages mirror the protests of the lives of many of its leaders. The place to begin is the book Stories of Emergence, edited by Mike Yaconelli. Most of these “stories of emergence” have in common a shared destination (namely, the Emergent Church movement) and a shared point of origin: traditional (and sometimes fundamentalist) Evangelicalism. What all of these people have in common is that they began in one thing and “emerged” into something else. This gives the book a flavor of protest, of rejection: we were where you were once, but we emerged from it into something different. The subtitle of the book discloses what the editor sees as common ground: Moving from Absolute to Authentic. I relate to this statement! An example may clarify what the book is trying to accomplish. Spencer Burke used to sit in a plush third-floor office, serving as one of the pastors of Mariners Church in Irvine, California—“a bona fide megachurch with a 25-acre property and a $7.8 million budget.” Every weekend 4,500 adults use the facilities, and the church ministers to 10,000 people a week. But Burke became troubled by things such as parking lot ministry. (“Helping well-dressed families in SUVs find the next available parking space isn’t my spiritual gift.”). He became equally disenchanted with three-point sermons and ten-step discipleship programs, not to mention the premillennial, pretribulational eschatology on which he had been trained. Burke came to realize that his “discontent was never with Mariners as a church, but [with] contemporary Christianity as an institution.” Agreed. Burke organizes the causes of his discontent under three headings. First, he has come to reject what he calls “spiritual McCarthyism,” the style of leadership that belongs to “a linear, analytical world” with clear lines of authority and a pastor who is CEO. Spiritual McCarthyism, Burke asserts, is “what happens when the pastor-as-CEO model goes bad or when well-meaning people get too much power.” These authority structures are quick to brand anyone a “liberal” who questions the received tradition. Here, again, I can say this is one of the fundamental flaws to be found with the whole JW organization. The second cause of Burke’s discontent is what he calls “spiritual isolationism.” Under this heading he includes the pattern of many churches moving from the city to the suburbs. Sometimes this is done under the guise of needing more space. Nevertheless, he insists, there are other motives. “It’s simpler for families to arrive at church without having to step over a drunk or watch drug deals go down in the alley. Let’s be honest: church in the city can be messy. Dealing with a homeless man who wanders into the service shouting expletives or cleaning up vomit from the back steps is a long way from parsing Greek verbs in seminary.” Indeed, megachurches out in the suburbs sometimes construct entire on-campus worlds, complete with shops and gyms and aerobics centers. The third cause of his discontent Burke labels “spiritual Darwinism”—climbing up the ladder on the assumption that bigger is better. The zeal for growth easily fostered “a kind of program-envy…. Looking back, I spent a good part of the 1980’s and ‘90s going from conference to conference learning how to ride high on someone else’s success.” To shepherd a congregation was not enough; the aim was to have the fastest-growing congregation. “It was survival of the fittest with a thin spiritual veneer.” In 1998 Burke started TheOoze.com. The name of the active chat room is designedly metaphorical: Burke intends this to be a place where “the various parts of the faith community are like mercury. Try to touch the liquid or constrain it, and the substance will resist. Rather than force people to fall into line, an oozy community tolerates differences and treats people who hold opposing view with great dignity. To me, that’s the essence of the emerging church.” Protest Against Modernism The difficulty in describing the Emergent Church movement as a protest against modernism is partly one of definition: neither modernism nor postmodernism is easy to define. Even experts in intellectual history disagree on their definitions. Yes, we seem to be discovering this. The majority view, however, is that the fundamental issue in the move from modernism to postmodernism is epistemology—i.e., how we know things, or think we know things. Modernism is often pictured as pursuing truth, absolutism, linear thinking, rationalism, certainty, the cerebral as opposed to the affective which, in turn, breeds arrogance, inflexibility, a lust to be right, the desire to control. Postmodernism, by contrast, recognizes how much of what we “know” is shaped by the culture in which we live, is controlled by emotions and aesthetics and heritage, and can only be intelligently held as part of a common tradition, without overbearing claims to being true or right. Modernism tries to find unquestioned foundations on which to build the edifice of knowledge and then proceeds with methodological rigor; postmodernism denies that such foundations exist (it is “antifoundational”) and insists that we come to “know” things in many ways, not a few of them lacking in rigor. Modernism is hard-edged and, in the domain of religion, focuses on truth versus error, right belief, confessionalism; postmodernism is gentle and, in the domain of religion, focuses upon relationships, love, shared tradition, integrity in discussion. How then do those who identify with the Emergent Church movement think about these matters? The majority of emerging church leaders see a very clear contrast between modern culture and postmodern culture and connect the divide to questions of epistemology. Some think that we are in a postmodern culture and therefore ought to be constructing postmodern churches. A few acknowledge that not everything in postmodernism is admirable and therefore want to maintain some sort of prophetic witness against postmodernism at various points while eagerly embracing the features of postmodernism that they perceive as admirable. Brian McLaren, probably the most articulate speaker in the emerging movement, has emphasized, in both books and lectures, that postmodernism is not antimodernism. The telling point for McLaren and most of the other leaders of the Emergent Church movement is their emphasis on the discontinuity as over against the continuity with modernism. When McLaren speaks through the lips of Neo, the postmodern Christian protagonist of his best-known books (the New Kind of Christian trilogy), he can use “post-” as a universal category to highlight what he does not like: “In the postmodern world, we become postconquest, postmechanistic, postanalytical, postsecular, postobjective, postcritical, postorganizational, postindividualistic, post-Protestant, and postconsumerist.” These books show how much what McLaren thinks “a new kind of Christian” should be like today is determined by all the new things he believes are bound up with postmodernism: hence “a new kind of Christian.” Much of McLaren’s aim in his writing and lecturing is to explode the certainties that he feels have controlled too much of the thinking of Western Christian people in the past. But there is a danger in constantly exploding the certainties of the past: if we are not careful, we may be left with nothing to hang on to at all. Recognizing the danger, McLaren takes the next step by providing us with two definitions. In other words, if you become OVERLY far left then spiritual liberalism becomes religious mythicalism....everything we know and hold true is merely a positive fairy tale. The first of his definitions is of philosophical pluralism, the stance that asserts that no single outlook can be the explanatory system or view of reality that accounts for all of life. Even if we Christians think we have it, we must immediately face the diversities among us: are we talking about Baptist views of reality? Presbyterian? Anglican? And which Baptist? Philosophical pluralism denies that any system offers a complete explanation. Ahhh..ok..now I am know that 'I" must a Pholosophical Pluist... The second definition is of relativism. It is the theory that denies absolutism and insists that morality and religion are relative to the people who embrace them. Lest Christians think none of this applies to them, McLaren draws attention to the ethnic cleansing of the Old Testament, to David’s many wives, BeachOfEden: Mormons in the Past? "to injunctions against wearing gold rings." BeachOfEden: Seventh-Day Adventists? If both philosophical pluralism and relativism are given free play, McLaren asserts, it is difficult to see how one can be faithful to the Bible. Yet absolutism cannot be allowed to rule: the criticism of absolutism is too devastating, too convincing to permit it to stand. So perhaps a culture plagued by absolutism needs a dose of relativism to correct what is wrong with it—not so much a relativism that utterly displaces what came before, but a relativism that in some sense embraces what came before, yet moves on. If absolutism is the cancer, it needs relativism as the chemotherapy. Even though this chemotherapy is dangerous in itself, it is the necessary solution. If absolutism is not the answer and absolute relativism is not the answer, what is the Christian way ahead? Here McLaren finds himself heavily indebted to the short work by Jonathan Wilson, Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World: Lessons for the Church from MacIntyre’s After Virtue. This is surely what we want: we want to learn to live faithfully in a fragmented world. Absolutism plays by one set of rules. Real pluralism is like a large field where many games are being played, each game observing its own rules. This sort of pluralism is coherent. But we live in a fragmented world: we are playing golf with a baseball, baseball with a soccer ball, and so forth. This is not real pluralism; it is fragmented existence. "Doubtless a few small, coherent, communities exist—Hasidic Jews, perhaps, or the Amish—" BeachOfEden: JW's "....who manage to play by one set of rules, but the rest of us are mired in fragmentations. As a result, there is no coherence, no agreement on where we are going. Our accounts of what we are doing maintain the lingering use of the older absolutist language, while we find ourselves, not in genuine pluralism, but in fragmentation." In North America we have a memory of absolutist totalitarian Christianity and experience fragmentation. So our choice is whether to go back to this absolutist heritage or forward to something else. Can we weave a fabric that is not totalitarian and absolutist but avoids absolute relativism? The former returns us to the barbarities and is unconvincing in a postmodern age; the latter simply leaves us open to the marketers, for there is no coherent defense against them. BeachOfEden: Can we avoid the extreme right's error is claiming they have all "THEE TRUTH"? Yet can we also avoid the far extreme left in which the Bible is just merely viewed as a positive collection of fairy tales and where Jesus was just a nice guy who died along time ago and can't help us today? The way ahead, McLaren suggests, is very helpfully set out in David Bosch’s Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Toward the end of the book, Bosch lists eight perspectives that speak to our situation and give us some direction: 1. Accept co-existence with different faiths gladly, not begrudgingly. It is not their fault if they are alive. BeachOfEden: Can we do this withOUT resorting to calling them names like "CULTS", "APOSTATES", "HEATHENS," or GENTILES,ECT??? 2. Dialogue presupposes commitment to one’s position, so it is surely not a bad thing to listen well. Dialogue should be congruent with confidence in the gospel. BeachOfEden: Progressive Christians do NOT claim to have all theee answers..but conservatives claim to have all the right answers...and so how can you communicate with those who claim they have all their understandings right while you have yours all wrong? 3. We assume that the dialogue takes place in the presence of God, the unseen Presence. In such dialogue we may learn things, as Peter does in Acts 10–11. Similarly, Jesus learns from his interchange with the Syrophoenician woman. 4. Missional dialogue requires humility and vulnerability. But that should not frighten us, for when we are weak, we are strong. It is surely right, for instance, to acknowledge earlier atrocities committed by Christians, even as we remain careful not to disparage those earlier Christians. BeachOfEden: So like you can say i don't like that or I don;t agree withOUT claiming someone's a cult or a heathen? 5. Each religion operates in its own world and therefore demands different responses from Christians. 6. Christian witness does not preclude dialogue. That would be nice. 7. The “old, old story” may not be the true, true story, for we continue to grow, and even our discussion and dialogues contribute to such growth. In other words, the questions raised by postmodernism help us to grow. 8. Live with the paradox: we know no way of salvation apart from Jesus Christ, but we do not prejudge what God may do with others. We must simply live with the tension. EXCELLENT!!! I have taken this much space to summarize McLaren’s views (articulated at a recent lecture) for a couple of reasons. One is because most sides would agree that McLaren is the emerging church’s most influential thinker (or, at the very least, one of them). Another reason is because while most leaders of the Emergent Church movement set up a relatively simple antithesis—namely, modernism is bad and postmodernism is good—McLaren is careful in this piece to avoid the obvious trap: many forms of postmodern thought do in fact lead to some kind of religious relativism, and McLaren knows that for the Christian that is not an option. He clearly wants to steer a course between absolutism and relativism, and he is more careful on this point than some of his peers. Nevertheless, for McLaren, absolutism is associated with modernism, so that every evaluation he offers on that side of the challenge is negative. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a single passage in any of the writings of the Emergent leaders that I have read that offers a positive evaluation of any element of substance in modernism. But McLaren does not connect relativism with postmodernism. He appears to think of relativism as something more extreme (perhaps postmodernism gone to seed?), while postmodernism itself becomes the uncritiqued matrix in which we must work out our theology. So while he dismisses absolute religious relativism (it cannot be said that he critiques it; rather, he recognizes that as a Christian he cannot finally go down that avenue), I have not yet seen from McLaren, or anyone else in the Emergent Church movement, a critique of any substantive element of postmodern thought. Protesting on Three Fronts The Emergent Church movement is characterized by a fair bit of protest against traditional Evangelicalism and, more broadly, against all that it understands by modernism. But some of its proponents add another front of protest, namely, the Seeker-sensitive church, the megachurch. The degree to which this element stands out varies considerably. It is certainly present, for instance, in Dan Kimball’s The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations. His recent book is praised by not a few pastors in the Seeker-sensitive tradition, doubtless because Kimball casts his work, in part, as the way forward to reach a new generation of people who have moved on, generationally and culturally, from the kinds of people who grabbed the attention of the Seeker-sensitive movement three decades ago. Although there are differences, the Emergent church leaders, like the Seeker-sensitive leaders in their time, are motivated, in part, by a desire to reach people who do not seem to be attracted to traditional approaches and stances—and the Seeker-sensitive movement is now old enough to be one of the “traditional” approaches. Pastors in the Seeker-sensitive tradition, then tend to see in the emerging church leaders a new generation of Christians doing the sort of thing that they themselves did a generation earlier. Kimball’s book sets out how to go after the post-Seeker-sensitive generation. Much of his material goes over common ground. He offers a kind of popular profile of what he thinks postmodernism embraces: it accepts pluralism, embraces the experiential, delights in the mystical, and is comfortable with narrative, with what is fluid, global, communal/tribal, and so forth. Kimball then turns to how we should go about things rather differently. This includes an appendix on post-Seeker-sensitive worship. Here we must have much more symbolism and a greater stress on the visual. We should have crosses and candles. There might be an entire communion service without a sermon. The entire geography of the room may be different, with the possibility of different groups within the assembly engaging in different things at a time, and perhaps someone going off for a while to a quiet desk for a bit of journaling. The entire experience should be multisensory; the prayer corner may well burn incense. “Worship in the emerging church,” Kimball writes, “is less about looking out for what is on the cutting edge and more about moving back into our spiritual center with Jesus as our sole focus.” Kimball offers us antithetical visions of modern preaching and postmodern preaching. In modern preaching, the sermon is the focal point of the service, and the preacher serves as the dispenser of biblical truths to help solve personal problems in modern life. Sermons emphasize explanation—explanation of what the truth is. The starting point is the Judeo-Christian worldview, and biblical terms like “gospel” and “Armageddon” do not need definition. The biblical text is communicated primarily with words, and this preaching takes place within the church building during a worship service. By contrast, Kimball writes, in the postmodern Emergent Church movement, the sermon is only one part of the experience of the worship gathering. Here the preacher teaches how the ancient wisdom applies to kingdom living; the preacher emphasizes and explains the experience of who the truth is. The starting point is the Garden of Eden and the retelling of the story of creation and of the origins of human beings and of sin (cf. Acts 17:22–34). The scriptural message is communicated through a mix of words, visual arts, silence, testimony, and story, and the preacher is a motivator who encourages people to learn from the Scriptures throughout the week. A lot of preaching takes place outside the church building in the context of community and relationships. Such preaching will be deeply theocentric rather than anthropocentric, and care should be taken not to insult people’s intelligence. What cannot be overlooked in Kimball’s book, I think, is how much of his analysis is specifically directed against churches in the Seeker-sensitive tradition. For example, some of his suggestions—such as insistence that sermons should be theocentric and not anthropocentric, that they should not insult the intelligence of the hearers, that instruction in the Word should go on throughout the week and not be confined to public services on Sunday, and what we should aim for in kingdom living, one could easily find in Reformed exhortations, perhaps in the pages of a magazine such as this. Other parts of Kimball’s advice, of course, could not similarly be aligned. Yet the fact that so much of what he has to say can be aligned with many serious voices within traditional Evangelicalism suggests that most of the time the “implied reader” of his book is not the more traditional evangelical church, but Seeker-sensitive churches. In Kimball’s view, they too are out of step with the culture and fall under the curse of modernism. Moreover, if, as we have seen, several of Kimball’s individual suggestions as to the way ahead are reminiscent of stances taken within parts of traditional Evangelicalism, the structure of his thought, taken as a whole, is distinctively postmodern. What Should We Be Asking? This is but a sketchy introduction to the Emergent Church movement. What have we learned so far and what questions should we be asking? From these summaries of the stories of many of the leaders of the emerging movement and the survey of some of their publications one point stands out rather dramatically. To grasp it succinctly, it is worth comparing the Emergent Church movement with the Reformation, which was, after all, another movement that claimed it wanted to reform the church. What drove the Reformation was the conviction, among all its leaders, that the Roman Catholic Church had departed from Scripture and had introduced theology and practices that were inimical to genuine Christian faith. In other words, they wanted things to change, not because they perceived that new developments had taken place in the culture so that the church was called to adapt its approach to the new cultural profile, but because they perceived that new theology and practices had developed in the church that contravened Scripture, and therefore that things needed to be reformed by the Word of God. By contrast, although the Emergent Church movement challenges, on biblical grounds, some of the beliefs and practices of Evangelicalism, by and large it insists it is preserving traditional confessionalism but changing the emphases because the culture has changed, and so inevitably those who are culturally sensitive see things in a fresh perspective. In other words, at the heart of the emerging reformation lies a perception of a major change in culture. This does not mean that the Emergent Church movement is wrong. It means, rather, three things. First, the Emergent Church movement must be evaluated as to its reading of contemporary culture. Most of its pleas for reform are tightly tied to its understandings of postmodernism. The difficulty of the task (granted the plethora of approaches to postmodernism) cannot exempt us from making an attempt. Second, as readers will have already observed from this short survey, the appeals to Scripture in the Emerging Church literature are generally of two kinds. On the one hand, some Emergent church leaders claim that changing times demand that fresh questions be asked of Scripture, and then fresh answers will be heard. What was an appropriate use of Scripture under modernism is no longer an appropriate use of Scripture under postmodernism. On this gentler reading of Evangelicalism’s history, traditional evangelicals are not accused of being deeply mistaken for their own times, but of being rather out of date now, not least in their handling of the Bible. On the other hand, the Emergent Church’s critique of modernism, and of the Evangelicalism that modernism has produced, is sometimes (not always) so bitter that Evangelicalism’s handling of Scripture can be mocked in stinging terms. This is not meant to imply that this is true of all emerging pastors. Third, granted that the Emergent Church movement is driven by its perception of widespread cultural changes, its own proposals for the way ahead must be assessed for their biblical fidelity. In other words, we must not only try to evaluate the accuracy of the Emergent Church’s cultural analysis, but also the extent to which its proposals spring from, or can at least be squared with, the Scriptures. To put the matter differently: Is there at least some danger that what is being advocated is not so much a new kind of Christian in a new Emergent Church, but a church that is so submerging itself in the culture that it risks hopeless compromise? See, this question is THEE FEAR of faith groups that ARE fundamental in nature. This IS, for example, the JW org's FEAR. Even to ask the question will strike some as impertinence at best, or a tired appeal to the old-fashioned at worst. I mean it to be neither. Most movements have both good and bad in them, and in the book from which this article is taken I highlight some of the things I find encouraging and helpful in the Emergent Church movement. " I find that I am more critical of the movement because my “take” on contemporary culture is a bit removed from theirs, partly because the solutions I think are required are somewhat different from theirs, partly because I worry about (unwitting) drift from Scripture, and partly because this movement feels like an exercise in pendulum swinging, where the law of unintended consequences can do a lot of damage before the pendulum comes to rest. BeachOfEden: But he can be MORe precise on what he means by this? For example is he worried that some individuals may enjoy attending an Emergent Church who do not embrace the tradtional Evangelical view on the trinity? Or maybe that some Progressive minded christians may enjoy attending an Emergent Church of whom may hold a conditional interpretation of the nature of hell? Or maybe that a Liberal Luthern may join an Emergent Church who may completely REJECT the whole Evangelical belief of Pre-millennialism and it's who "Rapture' belief system? Might these by some of the traditionalists, consevrative and fundamentalists' FEAR?