Apostolic Friends Forum - Ensey Camp Peacocking for a Showdown?

Quote:

The editorial in the recent Forward ministers’ magazine compassionately patted the fur of the emerging Pentecostal kittens who are gradually (no, quickly) discarding virtually every semblance of their Apostolic heritage. You could hear them purring all the way to St. Louis. When the emerging kittens become emergent tigers—and some have already matured—they may not be so easy to pet.

In a blitzkreig of recent blog posts, JR Ensey, champion of the new conservatives within the movement, continues to take aim at the Apostolic "emergents" he feels are misleading the fellowship to EMERGENDOM by deceptively stating they are merely "experimenting with new methodologies" and "contextualizing their faith".

He also blatantly attacks Rodney Shaw's Forward editorial which sought to define the difference between "emerging" and "emergent" ... and why Apostolics are about a decade late in the "emergent" labeling game. (source: http://rodneyshaw.wordpress.com/2009...oes-it-matter/)

To me, what seems to be prevailing in the last months of Ensey's blogs is an obsessive and incessant paranoid-filled rant about "emergents" with an "Obama is the Antichrist" twist.

And more significantly, an apocalyptic, drama-queenish belief that this IS THE HILL.

A sampling:

Quote:

From "We Kept Silent" ...

The complicit minority with the silent majority is a marriage made in Hell. Must truth forever be the victim of self-preservation?

Speaking out on the issues of false doctrine, Emergent ideologies, and unchecked, blatant compromise within ministerial ranks is not an option if we are to retain our Apostolic identity

I realize that some who label themselves as only “experimenting with different methodologies” do not think of themselves as compromising the truth. They believe we have been wrong on many of our positions and they have now been enlightened and need to drag the rest of the movement kicking and screaming into the light where they are or be left in the dust

Quote:

Lots of effort seems to be placed on definitions these days. Bill Clinton started it with his attempt to avoid penalty for his immoral actions by questioning a definition of “is.” Seemingly, every familiar term is currently undergoing an overhaul. Now we are seeing an effort to distinguish between “emerging” and “emergent,” evidently in an attempt to justify a runaway, extreme contextualization of American Christianity.

Current descriptions—“emergent” is bad but “emerging” is cool—are rather disturbing. If that is right, it is plain to see that the so-called “emerging” churches and pastors are rapidly becoming “emergent.” When the emergers get to where they are going, emergent will be where they are. Helen Keller could have seen that. You can see it and never leave your chair—a glance at church web sites around the country will confirm it.

What is emerging is a fifth column in the Apostolic movement that claims to merely be experimenting with new methodologies. But we cannot ignore the fact that many of them are also drifting into doctrinal heresy with the methodological changes serving as the doorway.

So let’s not kid ourselves. A rose is a rose is a rose. Call it an orchid but it will still smell the same. (From January)

Here are some quotes in which Ensey takes clear aim at Shaw's article seeking to be more precise with the rhetoric and defining terms. Ensey also seeks to lump men like Rick Warren, Ed Young Jr., Marc Driscoll and others who have sought to distance themselves from the 'emergent crowd'.

Ensey in January:

Quote:

Just because the foul-mouthed Mark Driscoll says that he and some of his ilk label themselves as “emerging” but not completely “emergent,” should we accept his definitions? Whose label should be trusted? Like our current political leadership—do we listen to what they say or watch what they do?

The editorial in the recent Forward ministers’ magazine compassionately patted the fur of the emerging Pentecostal kittens who are gradually (no, quickly) discarding virtually every semblance of their Apostolic heritage. You could hear them purring all the way to St. Louis. When the emerging kittens become emergent tigers—and some have already matured—they may not be so easy to pet.

There is very little difference, if any, between “emerging” and “emergent.” Perhaps one is far along on the “spiritual journey” to apostasy—or maybe there—and the other is packing for the trip.

Quote:

What? Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Andy Stanley and Ed Young, Jr. are “neither emerging or emergent”?Right, and Obama is not a socialist, either.

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck….

Source: http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/

The politics behind some of this brazen and warhawking rhetoric coming from the Enseyites is fascinating and noteworthy ... especially with Shaw being on the "ins" with the new GS.

Shaw, a moderate and Forward editor, it seems has been caught in the crossfire when it appears all he sought was to assuage the inflammatory accusations from the likes of Ensey, Mooney, Harrelson, Wright and others; and made a naive attempt to come to the table with civility, intellect and modicum of decorum.

Shaw, in the eyes of hardline Enseyites, is compassionately patting the fur of future tigers and well just being a plain ... softie.

I predict Sheriff Bernard's response will be an audible official plea to tone down this type of rhetoric that is pervading from licensed ministers on their blog, forums and "grassroot movement" sites pointing to protocol, ethics and policy.

If this mortar fire display of theological-political bravado by Enseytites is not more evidence that "not contending to the disunity of the brethren" is being excreted by those who once paraded the Affirmation statement as Bible, I don't know what is.

The elements of a high noon at the OKUPCI Corral showdown are in the making. Just look at their church and blog websites ... Helen Keller, Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see that.

But will the the MoTown boys show? Like they care?! Or will they continue with their "pied-piper agenda" oblivious to the mad musings of a marginal figure of an increasingly isolated and irrelevant counter-movement? Rev. Kent, will you be our healer?