However, Matthew 10 also gives us something that the Emergent folks don’t like to read:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; nd (BB)A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. ”

We’re called to be set apart, righteous, and promised that we will be persecuted and charged to persevere to the end. That’s hardly utopia, which is what I think Queen and other Emergents want to see established on earth.

Should we be less judgemental, more communal, care about justice and the love one another more? Absolutely.

Should we be so tolerant that we believe that many roads lead to heaven without Jesus? No. Queen’s pluralistic statement was obviously heretical.

@Edwin,
I agree. I think they have learned far more from the welfare system than the Bible. Where Scripture explicitly speaks to social care it does so in regards to believers (Matthew 25:31-46). I do think we have to look to the parable of the good Samaritan and to the general character of God as merciful and compassionate provider and realize that as men made in His image we must imitate Christ in the way we care for others; however, the emergent church has made this the pinnacle of Christ’s mission rather than an attribute of God which is seen as He proclaimed, and we proclaim, the gospel.

One problem I have is I simply can’t find that Jesus was concerned about socio-political issues at all. In our modern world, we see Jesus go to the poor and downtrodden and think that means some social work is to be done. However, Jesus didn’t do that work. Nowhere in the Bible is that work proclaimed for His church. Rather, he took the gospel to the poor and downtrodden because those were the people most likely to recognize they needed something. The wealthy, healthy, popular, and powerful never realized they needed anything more.

Sadly, this mission that has Christ’s church trying to make sure everyone is socio-economically happy and prosperous is merely giving to people the very things that Jesus said made it hard to enter the kingdom. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we need to go around making everyone poor. I just think it is sad that the mission these folks are giving the church is actually counter-productive to the mission Jesus gave it. The church’s job is to be the pillar and support of God’s truth that can save souls (I Timothy 3:15). The church’s job is to take a soul saving message to a lost people. It is not the church’s job to entertain, to politicize, to feed, to protect, socialize, or any other thing.

Jesus’ mission was quite clear. Die for the lost and establish a kingdom of the saved. I think the issue above about kingdom may use kingdom in more than one way. While in one sense God rules the entire world, if that was the sense in which kingdom is really used in the New Testament, then the prayer, “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” would be a bit moot.

Finally, when I hear this kind of stuff from the emergent crowd, I can’t help but think they are taking their cue from Depeche Mode as they present their own personal Jesus instead of from the real Jesus who can actually save us.

I’ve rambled enough.

I want to thank you for your piece. Bro. Queen must have a different view of what Chrisitianity should be and look like other than us “gettin’ folk saved” Christians.

I heard, not long ago, a UTube video where John Piper said that we (Evangelicals) are into the relief of human suffering. And that the ultimate pain relief is to tell folks the Gospel and help them to escape Hell eternally by the finished work of Christ.

I do appreciate your post.

“But, I have somewhat against thee!”

Please do not use the word “rhetoric” in a prejoriitive (sp?) or negative sense or as a term of derision. My grad work is in “Rhetoric,” “Rhetorical Criticism,” and “Communication Theory.”

Aristotle said that “Rhetoric is finding the available means of persuasion in each given case.” That is, you and me can persuade with any means necessary. Rhetoric is just “a means to and end!” That end could be good. The preacher tries to “persuade” people to trust Christ and repent.

Rhetoric is just like a dollar bill. It is neutral. It can be used to gamble or spent on booze. Or it can be spent to feed the hungry and homeless. It has no morality about it. The user and the use determine the moral goodnees or badness.

So, when you use the word “Rhetoric” in a headline as you have, you give the term a “bad name!”

We are alwasys hearing from the political and news types: “The Rhetoric of the Republicans!” “The Rhetoric of the Democrats!” “The Rhetoric of the Communists!” And it nearly always means the empty and bombastic verbage of our advasaries or enemies. Most have no idea what they are saying and only show their blatant ignorance. (Although I am not putting you in the category with these!).

This is FYI! and not intended to be a criticism, only a gentle correction. But then again most people who use the word “rhetoric” use it incorrectly.

I hope I have “persuaded” you?

sdg!
rd