New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Missouri Baptist layman Moran takes on 'emergent church'
 
Missouri Baptist layman Moran takes on 'emergent church' Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Friday, June 12, 2009

WINFIELD, Mo. (ABP) -- Thirty years after the Southern Baptist Convention began ridding itself of theological moderates and liberals, a prominent Missouri Baptist layman is warning that the nation's largest non-Catholic faith group now faces a different kind of liberalism from within.

Roger Moran, research director of the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association, is printing pamphlets to distribute at the upcoming SBC annual meeting warning messengers about what he views as dangers in a church-planting movement known as the "emerging" or "emergent" church.

Moran says the movement, which aims to create churches that are culturally relevant to what proponents call a "postmodern" society, is making inroads in Southern Baptist life, particularly in seminaries and the SBC's publishing arm, LifeWay Christian Resources.

Moran's 47-page document lays out in detail how controversy over the trend wreaked havoc among Baptist leadership in his own state and warns that unless it is addressed, similar strife may lie ahead for the SBC.

"In the name of missions, ministry and evangelism, the SBC is now in danger of embracing a new liberalism -- 'cultural liberalism' that claims to be theologically conservative,'" the pamphlet warns.

Unlike in the "battle for the Bible" that united conservatives against the predominantly moderate-to-progressive SBC bureaucracy of the 1980s, Moran says, the emergent-church crowd affirms the inerrancy of Scripture. As such, he says, many conservative Southern Baptists view it as nothing more than an innovative way to win people to Christ.

But Moran says in attempting to re-invent the image of evangelical Christianity, the emergent church often compromises beliefs such as the SBC's traditional opposition to use of beverage alcohol.

Moran claims the emergent church is making particular inroads at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., which has invited Mark Driscoll to speak on campus several times. Driscoll, a controversial figure in the emerging-church movement whose penchant for off-color language earned him the nickname the "cussing preacher," is pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

One of Driscoll's visits, Moran says, was during a "Preview Days" emphasis intended to attract new students to the campus.

Moran says Ed Stetzer, formerly a church-planting expert at the SBC North American Mission Board and now director of LifeWay Research, defends Driscoll. He notes that Stetzer is also a former board member of Acts 29, a network of pastors dedicated to planting new churches and reinvigorating old ones that Moran says introduced the emergent-church controversy in Missouri.

He points out that in December 2005, upon recommendation of then-Missouri Baptist Convention Executive Director David Clippard, the MBC Executive Board approved a $200,000 loan for a new church plant in St. Louis called The Journey.

Only afterward did members learn about unconventional outreach efforts by the group, including a monthly discussion about theology held at a local beer pub. The event was promoted on the church website with the line, "grab a brew, give your view."

Both Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary, and Stetzer declined to comment for this story.

Moran says he sees little value in evangelism that professes conservative theology but doesn't match the talk with what he views as a proper Christian lifestyle.

"Our problem is not in our lack of conservative theological rhetoric, nor in our lack of efforts in evangelism, but in our increasing willingness to neglect what Christ said is the most important of all, the first and greatest commandment," Moran said. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

Moran says his organization has not issued such a "Viewpoint" document since the days of Project 1000, a Missouri campaign against perceived theological and social liberalism within the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the then-moderate leadership of the Missouri Baptist Convention. CBF is a moderate group that formed in reaction to the SBC controversy of the 1980s.

Speaking to the SBC Executive Committee in February 2007, Moran described the emergent church as "one of the most dangerous and deceptive movements to infiltrate the ranks of Southern Baptist life."

"Not since the stealth tactics of the CBF have we seen a movement operate so successfully below the radar of rank-and-file Southern Baptists," he said.

-30-

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

Previous related ABP story:

Missouri Baptist leaders approve team to investigate executive (12/21/2006)

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (21)Add Comment
Roger Moran's Vie of Emergent Church
written by mightyfowl, June 12, 2009
Jesus said that loving the Lord with all your heart, mind, etc was the most important commandment IN the law. He was asked that by a pharisee, who could only have been referring to the OT law.

But Jesus supplanted that with a new commandment, that we loved on another as He has loved us. THAT is the more important one now, Mr. Moran.
Really?!?!?!?
written by JBCJohn2117, June 12, 2009
Kinda reminds me of the the local fundamentalist church in western NC littering our church parking lot with KJV only literature. Probably have the same level of success.
...
written by darrellscott, June 13, 2009
I gently agree with Mr. Moran, we must be very careful with some of these new "culturally revelant" attitudes creeping into to SBC. Just look at some of the Protestent denominations that have "veered off the Biblical map", in trying to be modern and "real". The Gospel and it's power to save is the same today as 2000 years ago.
All I can say is...
written by Ken, June 13, 2009
When I was a pastor in Missouri, Roger Moran used to send out literature regarding the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). Many of the people who were leading the MBC at the time accused Moran of misrepresenting CBF. They called him "un-Christlike" and compared him to a Pharisee. Now that's he's spoken against the "emerging church", his critics are once again having a field day.

All I can say is, Roger was right about the CBF.
Get Real
written by Matt28, June 13, 2009
I applaud Mr. Moran's fight against the CBF, but this is just crazy. Does he know anything about what is going on at Southeastern? That they are sending out more missionaries for the SBC than any other seminary? That the students sign a committment to not drink alcohol while enrolled at the school? That there is a difference between learning about the emerging churches (there are many varieties) and adopting all their methods? That a heart for Christ leads to a heart for the nations and that very spirit is pulsating through the Southeastern campus right now? That students are learning to use discernment - to learn culture and engage culture without succombing to Biblical compromise? I'm looking forward to reading the document, finding all its poorly conceived criticisms, and throwing it away. The argument will probably be this robust: Southeastern had Mark Driscoll. Mark Driscoll does x, y, and z. Can you believe that!! This means that Southeastern wants their students to do x, y, and z. Furthermore, the emerging church (as if there were one) does a, b, and c. This means Southeastern wants her students to do a, b, and c! Can you believe that!

There will be no mention of the fact that the seminary presents a variety of models and ideas and helps students critique them from a theological perspective. To learn what is good and emulate and to eschew what is not so good. To learn to engage culture without compromising the Lordship of Christ. To make sure what offends people is not our human traditions but Christ and the cross.

We are at a time that requires deep thinking about Christ and his cross and His salvation for the nations. If we think a 1950s model church is going to work in most of America - we are sorely mistaken. The gospel does not change. Christ does not change. The expectations of believers do not change. How that works itself out in Seattle versus Rural Hollow, USA will change . . . unless we want to DISOBEY Christ and FORGET THE LOST.

Wake up people!
Matt28
written by Ken, June 13, 2009
Last fall I attended a seminar on the emerging church movement. The leader wore blue jeans and a goatee beard - hardly a fundamentalist of the Bob Jones/Jack Hyles tradition. Yet even he sounded the warning about the wayward theology within the movement. The movement talks a great deal about the "trajectory of truth", which boils down to making the Bible say whatever they want it to say.

If the emerging church movement was simply about different methods, I'd be inclined to agree with you. It's much more than that. I don't always agree with Roger, but I do share his concerns on this issue.
In fairness to Mark Driscoll...
written by Ken, June 13, 2009
Most of what I know about the emerging church movement comes from such leaders as Rob Bell and Brian Maclaren. I understand Mark Driscoll has criticized them on some points, so he may not embrace the "trajectory of truth" hermeneutic. If such is the case, that puts the issue in a somewhat different light.

Be that as it may, I think Southern Baptists should use extreme caution in embracing this movement. I fail to see how we're going to reach the world by becoming more like the world.
...
written by Matt28, June 13, 2009
To speak of "the emerging church movement" is a bit of a misnomer. There are many streams, some better than others. People are getting saved in Seattle. Do I agree with everything M. Driscoll is doing, no. Do I respect him and appreciate that he loves Christ and wants others to do the same in a tough environment, absolutely. Driscoll is no Maclaren or Bell, that's for sure.

Furthermore, the implication is that inviting someone to campus means we agree with them in all points. That is just plain stupid! Southeastern is a seminary. The teach consistent with the BFM 2000, the Danvers Statement, and the Chicago Statement. But, they also reference other perspectives so students are equipped to know the world of ideas in which they will operate and so they can responds Biblically, thoughtfully, and appropriately.

To say we can learn nothing from Driscoll is arrogant. To say listening to him means agreeing with everything he says or does is a very poor rationale. If you want to know where Southeastern stands do the following: 1) read the statements that all elected and appointed faculty sign, 2) read the books their faculty have written or contributed to(A Theology for the Church, Spirit-Led Preaching, and The Convergent Church would be good for starters, and 3) come to the campus, sit in a class, and see if you think the seminary is losing its way.

You will leave in awe of what God is doing and with a truly repentant heart for making such poor assumptions and leaps of logic.
Matt28
written by Ken, June 13, 2009
"You will leave in awe of what God is doing and with a truly repentant heart for making such poor assumptions and leaps of logic."

I don't know who you're accusing of "poor assumptions and leaps of logic", but I've said absolutely nothing against Dr. Akin or Southeastern. I only said that some legitimate criticisms have been made of the emerging church movement.

Perhaps you should be a bit more specific in your use of pronouns.
...
written by Matt28, June 13, 2009
I am referencing the article itself. This statement in particular. "Moran claims the emergent church is making particular inroads at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., which has invited Mark Driscoll to speak on campus several times." The pronoun "you" is used in the generic sense. Anyone who accepts this statement as accurate has not done due diligence.
Right about CBF?
written by cwsuggs, June 16, 2009
Ken, I'm curious as to what you meant when you said Moran was right about CBF. Can you unpack that a bit?
cwsuggs
written by Ken, June 16, 2009
As Roger puts it, not everyone in the CBF is liberal, but liberalism has found a home in the CBF. For instance, some prominent CBF leaders have said that a person can be saved apart from Christ. Organizations like the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America were allowed to have booths at CBF's annual meeting, from which they distributed pro-homosexual literature. Baptist Women in Ministry has a close association with the CBF. Some of their past leaders have supported the ordination of homosexuals, and one year they had a service honoring "Mother God."

Just last year, CBF had a speaker at their annual meeting who openly denies the deity of Christ. At first, CBF leaders defended his presence in the name of "diversity." Dan Vestal later said that he didn't know about the speaker's beliefs. Given that the speaker published a book on the subject, I find that hard to believe.

These are just a few examples, and I am recalling them offhand. I can provide fuller details with documentation if you would like.
cwsuggs
written by Ken, June 16, 2009
For more information on this subject, you might want to read Russell Moore's article called "Baptist Counter-Reformation." It's in the October 2000 edition of "SBC Life", and is still available online.
...
written by Slick, June 18, 2009
Ken...Ken...you of all people ought to know all the negatives about Moran. His slash-and-burn tactics (can you say Sherman's march across Georgia?)are among the the things that give us conservative Baptists a bad name. I am not a CBFer but I know many, many good people who are and they are not all ultra-liberal, godless people as Moran would have people believe.

I am not at all a supporter of the emerging church movement or Mark Driscoll. In fact I was quite pleased to listen to a radio series some months ago that identified some major issues with the emerging church movement. Will such a movement bring people to Jesus? Possibly so and I hope so. But theirs is not my theology.

Moran's efforts seem to me to be little more than another ultra-conservative radical trying to stir up something new this week.

Granted, the CBF has moved far to the left on social issues from where it began, but those Christian believers have a right to follow the Bible as they see it--and I can tell you they don't see it simplisticly, just as Presbyterians and Lutherans are not simplistic. Even the emerging church members can follow the Bible as they see it. It does the Kingdon no useful purpose to constantly attack that with which we disagree.

Now before you beat me up, stating one's opinion is quite a bit different than attack.

BTW, did you attend MBTS??? Maybe we should debate Ralph Elliott's work!
Slick
written by Ken, June 18, 2009
"Granted, the CBF has moved far to the left on social issues from where it began, but those Christian believers have a right to follow the Bible as they see it"

Sorry, but that's a cop-out. No one is disputing CBF's right to believe what they want, but I reserve my right to denounce such beliefs as heresy. It's not just about social issues. CBF had a speaker last year that denied the deity of Christ. Other CBF leaders have denied that Jesus is the only way to God. How do you think the apostles would have felt about that?

"It does the Kingdon no useful purpose to constantly attack that with which we disagree."

Hmmm. So how do you justify your attacks against Roger Moran and others with whom you disagree? I don't always agree with Roger (who is a personal friend of mine), but he was absolutely right about the CBF. None of the instances I cited came from his materials. I found that from my own research.

The apostles were quick to denounce false doctrine. Read 1 John and Galatians. As I said, I'm not familiar with Mark Driscoll, but I have read some things by the other emerging church leaders. We have good reason to be concerned.

P.S. I read your comments on the article about Christa Brown book. I don't know much about her, so I can't say anything one way or the other about her. However, I do agree with you about the dangers of a "national registry" in the SBC.
Ken
written by Slick, June 19, 2009
Ken, why get your panties in a wad over the CBF? I don't care what they chose to believe. I am not drawn to everything they espouse but neither do I accept everything that come out of Ft Worth or Louisville. Mohler and Patterson, who in my opinion set themselves up as ultimate authorities on everything religious, are some miles apart on Calvinism. I agree with you that there are reasons for concern over the emerging church movement and you make a valid point about denunciation of false doctrine.

Why do you not rail out against every other denomination but only attach the CBF? How about infant baptism? Transubstantiation? And how about going to confessions? Our Presbyterian brothers sprinkle so then are they not really Baptized? How about the Church of Christ that claims, I believe, that baptism is essential for salvation? You're missing a lot of doctrines that, according to you, are false.
Slick
written by Ken, June 19, 2009
"Ken, why get your panties in a wad over the CBF?"

I don't. I just tell the truth. CBF should try it sometime.

"I don't care what they chose to believe."

You don't care that people are preaching false doctrine while claiming to represent "historic Baptist beliefs"?

"Why do you not rail out against every other denomination but only attach the CBF?"

Because other denominations don't claim to represent "historic Baptist beliefs." The leaders of CBF are not just heretics, they are also revisionists, and their specialty seems to be slandering the SBC.

You didn't answer my question. If you think it's so wrong to attack people who disagree with you, then why do you do it? You lecture me on that issue, and yet you have no problem with bashing Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Roger Moran, and anyone else who disagrees with you. Why the double standard? I've asked you that several times on other threads, and you've not yet given me an answer.
...
written by Slick, June 19, 2009
Actually, some of my rhetoric is a bit tongue-in-cheek but unfortunately doesn’t always come across as being that way. In fact, some of my comments are intended to elicit some discussion. That was a technique I used quite a bit as a college professor back in the 90s. I was on the faculty of a fairly conservative Baptist college in the South, but our doctrinal views, fortunately, had nothing to do with our faculty appointments. I wanted to provoke my students to think for themselves and not just blindly accept anything they heard. While I often appeared to be challenging positions of the ultra-right wing of the religious continuum, I ultimately wanted my students to think about developing their own positions based on their own analysis and not based on what some so-called authority told them. I invited them to challenge me when they though I held a view different from the norm. It wasn’t a matter of who was right but about coming to an informed, defensible position.

From where I sit, Mohler and Patterson both seek the public spotlight all too often and I do fault them for that. And from what I’ve read about Moran—almost all of it NOT in AB Press—I get a very negative impression of him. Yes, I know I am getting that information filtered through the lenses of others, but it all seems to portray a man out to attack any doctrinal position with which he does not agree. In the same vein, I never had a positive thought about Jerry Falwell because of what came across to me as his condescending arrogance. Unfortunately, the good, caring, loving side of him did not come across publicly as did his other side. After his death, one of the senior administrators at LU wrote about the kind, generally unseen side of him and Falwell was very kind and helpful to a long-time friend of mine after excessive stress caused him to leave the pastorate.

So while I appear to you to be attacking people, it is really their methods and some of their ideas with which I disagree. And my use of terms such as ultra-radical right wing fundamentalists might have worked well in the live classroom, it may have been less effective in these discussions. Terminology can evoke emotions at times. You may prefer to call it a conservative resurgence while I’ll continue to call it a fundamentalist takeover. I still believe in soul competence/priesthood of the believer. I still believe the gerrymandering of the BFM of 1963 was little more than an attempt to give mortal men a position above complete, total scriptures. I really don’t care what the CBF espouses because the scriptures are my guide. Neither my railing against them or yours will change things. I’d rather spend my time working on my own personal relationship with the Lord and letting Him lead my life. I’d rather focus on what I should be for than what I should be against. I’d prefer to point others to Jesus than constantly beating them over the head about what I might think is their wrongness. Jesus had love and compassion for sinners but attacked the Pharisees in particular because of their hearts. I do believe we have too many modern-day Pharisees in the far right, fundamentalists wing of the SBC and probably some other denominations. These are the folks who like to spend all their time telling everyone else to stop sinning but that’s about it.

When it comes to traditional, historic Baptist beliefs, it probably is impossible to reach any kind of unanimity on what that entails. When we get beyond believers baptism by immersion and communion, we start to differ on many things. That’s probably why we all don’t go to the same church.
Questions answered??
...
written by Slick, June 23, 2009
It would do well for the objective, intersted folks to do a Google search on Moran and see what a lightening rod he is. For example:


http://www.missouribaptists.org/truth.asp


Anybody remember Joe McCarthy???
Slick (but not slick enough)
written by Ken, June 30, 2009
"Questions answered??"

No. You just gave the usual rationalizations. The name "Slick" fits you quite well, and that's not intended as a compliment.

"So while I appear to you to be attacking people, it is really their methods and some of their ideas with which I disagree."

Is that so? Yet when I voice disagreement or criticize others, you accuse me of "attacking fellow Christians." If you're going to do this sort of thing, then I hardly think you have any business lecturing me or anyone else on the subject. It makes you sound like a sanctimonious phony.
.
ken
written by Slick, July 09, 2009
And you belong with the Pharisees because you seem to be exactly like them. And I believe we all know what Jesus said about the hard hearts of many of the Pharisees.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.