The Emergent Church: the New Paganism?

Recent articles have made the claim that the Body of Messiah is heading for paganism with it's road being paved by Emergent Church theology. This movement and 'conversation' has been called all manner of negative monikers denoting the ill-repute they have within the majority of the Body of Messiah. John MacArthur and many within the traditional evangelical party brand these styles as "unbiblical", "pagan", "demonizing", and, worst of all, "hateful". If they accept gay couples into their midst while their 'Christian' brothers are crying about how 'gayday' shouldn't be allowed at Six Flags or Disney World, how can we assume they are hateful? I would agree that much of their idea of biblical interpretation seems skewed in comparison with my own, but am I to mock and poke fun at them? Is this what Messiah would want? In a recent Way of the Master clip I listened to, the show's host, Todd Friel, throws a torrent of comments that seem much less like the Way of our Master and much more like a jerk. This has been the norm for those refuting claims within much of the Emergent Church. Is this right? Can the claim be made that they are any more incorrect than any other 'denominational division' within the Body? How do we deal with those inside the Body that we disagree with? What are we supposed to do if we see something and we can't lift up our brothers and sisters to see the same thing? Really bring some answers, friends. Peace.

Undulating Truth-How aware should a Heretic be of Biblical issues?

Though the biblical accounts give us quite an idea of what went on in their time, we have to understand how difficult it can be to accurately pull all benefit of the text from immediate and brief readings. I may be seen as heretical for these next few parts (pun not intended), but I believe that the best interpretation is a historically accurate one. In most Christian literature, I see a divorce from what would be considered good historicity and what is actually written down. Let's take for example, the Pharisees....one of the most looked down upon groups in first century history...anywhere....ever. They are seen as hypocritical, envious, evil, and downright mean and contentious naysayers that don't know Adonai because their rules and regulations get in the way. I would propose that a more thorough search into their ideas and culture would yield something that happens to be the complete opposite of what 'common knowledge' is. Let's take, for example, the fact that most of what Jesus says lines up with common Pharisaic understanding...especially that of Hillel, one of the most prominent Rabbinic figures in the Jewish first century. What of Paul? He says "I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee" in Acts 23, well after his conversion. His ideas fall in line with that of Hillel also.....although, as a sidenote, I think that has direct correlation to his teacher, Gamaliel, the grandson of said prominent figure, Hillel. What of James? His letter follows as much of the Jewish writing of the time, outlining a discourse in the life one should lead as a follower of Messiah. What of the very Pharisees within the Gospels that question Jesus?...not as a potential problem to faith or as an issue within greater Judaism, but as the Messiah. Not to mention, the fact that His prophecy and His miracles made Him quite popular in some of their circles; why else would He be asked to dinner so many times throughout the Gospels?! This information alone leads me to believe that there needs to be a reworking and reevaluation of our historical ideas. What if Jesus wasn't totally up in arms with all Pharisees? What would it mean if He was one? If His disciples were? Have fun, heretics. Peace.

What is a heretic?

1.
a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2.
Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3.
anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

It seemed well and good for me to describe what I intend to do through this blog by means of giving the definition for the very thing that I have been accused of being. A heretic doesn't have to reject all of the doctrines of a certain faith, just a few. For that reason, I would have to say that I'm not really sure if I could fall into the category of heretic with what things I do believe. I would even beg the question, what makes one a heretic in the modern Body of Messiah? I guess the answer to the question would be in how we interpret the writings of the Tanakh and the writings of the Apostles (Shaliachim). I believe that interpretation depends on the three "C's" of biblical study: context, context, context. Without the adequate picture behind the writings of the Newer Covenant , we are left with an incomplete doctrine and message. I have been studying the origins of our belief system for about two years now and, though I am nowhere near full knowledge and will never be, I seem to be creating quite a stir with the difference in opinion and thought from most evangelical Christians that I know. When questioned about church growth and size, my immediate reaction is to ask what the guage would be for appropriate growth and why size is of any importance. Obviously, most people are a little perturbed at the fact that I answer a question with a question, but, more importantly, they stop to ponder this question. Is questioning the longstanding idea that the size of a congregation is the cubit's rod for our growth a heretical idea? What is a proper response to "How healthy is your Church?" What is the origin of the word 'Church' and why is it so important that we figure it out? Does it change our idea of the Body of Messiah? Should it? Have fun heretics.