If you're a believer who's also a net-crawler (someone who spends time on the internet) chances are you're already encountered something called the Emergent Church or the Emergent Church Movement. Unless you've done a LOT of reading, you're probably a bit confused about it. That's because there's no set definition for what "emergent" means.

I guess the safest definition or description for the emergent church movement (ECM) is an attempt to make the Gospel relevant to/in a postmodern culture. In fact, "relevance" seems to be quite a buzzword in the ECM. Since PoMo's (Postmoderns) have mostly given up on the idea of truth as an absolute, the ECM believes classical apologetics & traditional evangelism no longer work. What's needed is to show how the Gospel "fits" the felt-needs of modern people. It isn't that all ECMers reject Truth themselves (although some in fact do) it's that they don't believe rationalistic approaches appeal to people anymore. What the lost are looking for is relevance, a need for significance, and ECMers believe the Gospel is the best option out there to give that.

That's putting the best kind of face on the ECM. Sadly, many segments of the EC have become so embracing of postmodernism, they've drunk the poison of universalism. While they say the Gospel is the best way to God, it isn't the only way. Some of the main leaders of the ECM have taken this position. Others of its original leaders have rejected this movement toward universalism and distanced themselves from the ECM altogether.

All in all, when dealing with the Emergent Church or its larger movement, there's a need to exercise great care against lumping them all together under one definition because they are about as different as the word "car."

Comments (1)

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment