On the "Emergent Church" and becoming Catholic

It was probably the fluidity, variability, and equivocation that had to do with my own questioning and rejection of what's going on in many, if not most of the Protestant denominations these days, let alone for the last 500 years or so. Not that I'm particularly intolerant, socially, but when it comes to faith, well, sorry if people find it uncomfortable, but it is what it is. It's funny, one of my major problems with Christianity in the past was my own rebellion against authority, exclusivity, and rules, and yet, when God restored my faith, I chose which church? Only the MOST authoritarian and conservative!

I do try to avoid a we/them conversation, in particular because I haven't quite become one of "we" Catholics yet, but more because I think unfair to characterize others who are living in profound relationship with God, even though they may believe in one or more of the many variant doctrines out there. It was that doctrinal variability, the ability to simply change the rules to become more inclusive, to reject the unpopular, to gain or use temporal political power (whether to the right or the left, Palin, or Kennedy), all to make more people more comfortable. It's as though the goal has been to make them feel that the church is an extension of their opinions and politics, rather than the foundation of their relationship with God, and to get people in the pews, no matter what you might do their souls. That's what I've found extremely troubling. (Read as: Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Rick Warren, ad nauseum) Those guys were recognizable, but now, it's not just feel good pablum, but something more dangerous, and the list grows longer, the leaders are less flamboyant and noticeable, and it's less about lining their pockets immediately, than it is about gaining power and altering the message. It's gone almost underground, or at least under camouflage.

Even now, some of the more conservative denominations, Nazarenes, Foursquare, AOG, the Church of God in Christ, and many Baptist organizations are being pulled into the "emergent church" conversation. There are parts of that conversation that "sound" good, but there are dangers within it that I don't think people are foreseeing. For one thing, I doubt they really understand the underlying, wholly worldly philosophies that it began with, and many of those furthering it are (to my mind) deliberately avoiding discussing those fundamentals by cloaking it in terms that don't feel so foreign to those churches as they would if they were up front about the genesis of the movement. It's deception, plain and simple.

I think that many of their congregations will, as did the Anglicans in the US, wake up one day and find their churches nearly unrecognizable, and sadly, find that the very reasons for their existence has been made secondary. The core of their faith community is arguably, altogether lost in the social conscience oriented thrust of these "conversations". The proponents of these ideologies carefully avoid calling them movements, ideologies, or new denominations, but that's exactly what they are.

They're called conversations, which don't sound as threatening as doctrinal displacement, overhaul, or takeovers of their churches. Much of the language seems to have come from the old Werner Erhard/EST mindset, which in and of itself, probably did a lot of good for people as individuals. When applied to matters of faith and doctrine, however, not to mention being bent by the ambitions and denominational rebellion so common to many Christians today, it becomes much more inclined to err. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

Those efforts do not seem to me forthright, open, and honest methods and tactics for causing Spirit driven change in the church. It's ecumenical, but in a way that isn't what we would want if we understood it fully. This latest threat is growing and becoming ever more popular, because it rebels against some of the problems of the older Protestant denominations. Concepts like "missionality", the so-called "emergent church", messages of moral tolerance, social relevance, etc., attract younger, more morally or religiously disconnected and ambiguous "seekers".

The fact that it does so by diverting the focus away from the message of the Gospel and more toward an amorphous "spirituality" and social involvement seems to get lost on the older, more conservative members of the church. It makes that easier by couching it all in familiar sounding terms. On the surface, these are attractive to people who easily reject the more difficult path, and reasonably acceptable as "more modern interpretations" by those conservative people who have long been part of those churches.

There's a reliance on a post-Christian message and watering down of the Gospel in order to make it more palatable, more inclusive, and accessible. I could go on about the dangers, pitfalls, and problems of this extremely widespread change in Protestantism, but for now, just this: Narrow is the gate; even if it's unpopular and un-hip to consider that important warning.

That's one of the many reasons becoming a Catholic was really the ONLY choice for me to make, no matter how hard it is to get in, or how hard it is for others to understand. I can only hope that someday I will have the skills to explain my choices and to help others who want to, to understand.

God bless and keep you,

James