Scripture: Is it that Important?

In my study of the Scripture I have learned many things and much of what I write about comes from the things that I have learned from it. But I also value the study of things outside of Scripture. One of the things I have studied lately in the Emergent Church, because of my lack of knowledge about it. I have been helped by some blog-friends who have tried to point me in the right direction (as they see it). I have also read a great deal by some who are anti-Emergent.

Now what I have found claims one thing to be true about the Emergent Church, but before I go there let me make a brief statement. After reading a blog by Kyle I understand that the movement of emerging is not united and therefore the spokesman of one group is not the spokesman of the whole. So for this blog I am not attacking the movement of emerging, but rather the Emergent individuals who discuss what I am about to talk about.

In my study of the church over the past decade or so there have been some major developments in the idea of what Scripture is. There was a time when a group of people, and these people still exist, came out and said that the Scripture is not inerrant. They were attacking the claim that Scripture is 100% truth without any error. Now this movement was refuted and among most of the church, at least American, it is no longer a major issue to deal with (though it still plagues liberal universities). Then there was the movement which said, "yes, Scripture is 100% true, but it isn't enough." This movement was headed up most by the charismatic movement which claimed new revelations. It had a major force behind it and even though it still has a large following, most have seen that the claimed miracles were fakes and Scripture once again stood as inerrant, infallible, authoritative, and sufficient.

Now comes the new movement of the Emergent Church. Now on the surface of this movement it looks like a group who wants to reach Christ with the Gospel. The problem with this is that they are attacking the Scripture. How are they doing this. They are calling it unclear. They aren't saying that it isn't true, simply that we don't have the means to fully understand it. Maybe that is why Brian McLaren, a leading spokesman for the movement said this "Welcome to our world. Being "right" isn't enough. We also need to be wise. And loving. And patient. Perhaps nothing short of that should "seem good to the Holy Spirit and us" (in the context of this article he discusses a couple who came to him to discuss homosexuality and he was unable to give an answer because of what might lie beneath the question. Then he suggest that a major study over the next five years be done by many different disciplines to see if we can come to an agreement). But I find the Scripture to be very right, and have no problem asserting that rightness. Moses had no problem telling Israel what was right, neither did the prophets. Then we come to the New Testament, the testament of grace, and Jesus tells us what is right as well does His follower who wrote the New Testament. Yet, McLaren says we need to do better then knowing what is right.

Then we have John H. Armstrong who speaks of the West as a post-Christian world and how we need to adjust out way, form a new church to fit into this world,

I am quite convinced that what we have is a "new" world. Christendom is plainly
dead, at least as we have known it for centuries. The West is secular and
post-Christian. If I am right about this then we need a "new" church to reach
this "new" world. Note that I did not say we need a "new" gospel. We need a
"new" church, one that is a clear embodiment of the gospel. This church needs to
re-imagine its identity as the "sent people of God." This "new" church calls for
"new" leaders. These leaders must be able to:
1. Read culture2. Model the mission 3. Empower others
Lest you think this is easy to do please think again. Few pastors are taught to read culture but rather to build institutions that reflect Christendom's ideals. And almost no boomer churches "model the mission," preferring rather to serve the needs of their narcissistic seekers in some way. And empowering others is not what most seminaries teach future pastors. We have our work cut out for us friends. This will demand a new kind of leader and a new kind of mission, which is why I borrow the word missional to describe what the church really needs. If I said "mission" a whole generation would think programs and professional pastors and evangelists. This is exactly what the church must give up if it is to reach the new world with the old
gospel.

He claims that pastors should be taught about culture and that the church should be built on the ideals of culture instead of Christendom's ideals. What does this mean? Do we do away with what the faith is built on and just teach feel good ideals? He says that seminaries aren't teaching future pastors to empower others. Now that might be true of some. My question is whether or not he is empowering anyone? He seems not to care at all about righteousness, simply pragmatic means of gathering followers in this new day.

Here are my questions. Is the world that much different from the days of our past? Are we that much more sinful/sinless? Did Jesus and Paul formulate their methods to the people? Most importantly, does the Scripture really even matter?

I think this comes down to the core of what Christianity is founded on...what do you guys think?