In the last few days, I have been privy to a heated discussion about “Emergent Village” (the U.S. based organization) and a broader church movement (dare I say trend) known as the “emerging movement.”
To provide some kind of distinction between the two following is a link to an article in Christianity Today about the “emerging church”
In their own words:
“Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.”
In this context, it looks like the emerging church movement is the herald of the next great Christian revival. Upon closer inspection, the movement, has caused quite a stir in the traditional, evangelical and apologetic circles.
By their own admission, the movement is not defined by a theology. To confuse the issue even more, Scot Mcknight in a speech given at Westminster Theological Seminary last year states and I paraphrase, that it’s very lack of theological definition is in itself the movement’s “theological” definition. Mcknight adds; “It is instead, best to see it (the movement) as a conversation about theology, with all kinds of theologies represented, with a core adhering to the classical creeds in a new key.”
Proponents claim, in a nutshell, that the emerging movement is a heretofore “un-churched” group of Christians who have either been burned by the traditional model of the evangelical church, disillusioned by the lack of personal focus of the mega-church and/or just completely devoid of the “church” experience that they don’t know the difference between their heads and their behinds and that they’re only way of finding out what Christianity is all about is to have conversations of and about theology where everything goes.
Prominent critic of the movement, D.A. Carson, have this to say
And here is a comment from Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA who is a known associate and has since distanced himself from the movement. He chronicles his association and eventual distancing from the movement in his blog.
"In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.”
The more I delve into this movement and their outspoken characters, the more I come to the personal conclusion that this is a movement who, though they may believe in the tenets of Christian faith, need to craft their doctrinal interpretations into a more biblical methodology and application of said faiths.
Their stance and writings on several controversial issues affecting the church such as homosexuality, the existence of hell and sin, saving grace and the very gender of God, leave a lot for us doctrinal purists to be desired. Their approach to evangelical outreach and Christian living is prophetic (read provocative), postmodern (whatever that means) and even experimental designed to be not only provocative but political in nature. They shroud their thoughts and writings in religious jargon that does more than rouse alternative interpretations of the written word, sometimes they’re downright heretical.
My point is this: Could there really be that much of a chasm between doctrinal (some say theological) soundness and methodology in daily life? If the debate over the movement and their "conversations" centers on labels, then there really isn’t much of a debate because labels are always subject to interpretation. However, there are absolute, God-Given, non-negotiable, tenets of faith, that cannot and must not be breached. If the Lordship of Christ is paramount in our lives and every dark corner of our heart is in complete submission to the Lord’s will, how, then, can we even consider incomplete and incorrect teachings such as “the prosperity gospel” or “the social gospel” and how can we tolerate the absence of absolute truth (which is how I understand postmodernism).
We are given commandments that we are, under Christ's authority, obligated to carry out and though there are no “Evangelism for Dummies” or “The Great Commission for Dummies” that was left behind for us to follow, I honestly do not think that we should be compromising what has been left for us to accomplish two thousand years ago by tinkering with the method of delivery or its application. And though we must adapt to our surroundings (1 Cor. 9: 19-22) and relate to our fellow men with compassion, we do so for the purpose of the gospel, in that way we may “… become a fellow partaker in it.” (1 Cor. 9: 23)
Despite what the movement puts on paper, the doctrines, teachings, and thoughts they practice and commit to their conversations, are highly suspect. Though, and I will make this concession, not all of their participants are doctrinally un-sound, the movement in it’s entirety requires discernment. In a nutshell: If there is a cause for the need for discipleship in the true word of God, this is it.
3 comments:
D.A Carson's book on the subject is great read. i will have to let you borrow it.
What I don't understand about "emergent" (broadly defined), is how they wish to have a "conversation" without having something to "converse" about?
Granted, maybe all of them are not unsound in their Doctrine. However, I will stand by saying that most of them are. And unfortunately for the ones that are, the most influentual and known are the ones that are not--Pagitt, McLaren, and so on.
The concern with "emergent" is that they, like Erwin McManus says in his book, The Barbarian Way, "Want to destroy the traditional Church and build it back up" (my paraphrase).
Also, their lack of belief in absolute truths is alarming. This post ties in pretty close to your previous ones as to how unsound doctrine is being accepted, taught, and encouraged by many of the "emergent" Churches.
When a Christian movement is enabling the teachings that the Bible, and or God, are not black and white, that is dangerous.
Anyhow, I can keep writing about this, but I would take up too much space.
Michael Spencer (iMonk) writes a good article in the Next-Wave Ezine that perhaps you should read. He says, for example, in point 3:
When you refer to the “emerging church,” it’s very confusing. You seem unaware of any differences in Christians identifying with this conversation...
It seems relatively simple to ask that everyone who says “we are trying to reach the postmodern emerging culture,” not be saddled with every fault and criticism of every book/talk by McLaren...
Conservative evangelicals would find it immediately revealing of one’s level of understanding if someone showed no apparent knowledge of a substantial difference between J.I. Packer and T.D. Jakes. I’d suggest that what may be under the umbrella of emerging Christianity is a diversity at least as wide...
In particular, it’s strange to hear the emerging church spoken of as denying the deity and supremacy of Christ, or of de-emphasizing the cross and resurrection. I am sure there are some emerging church types doing exactly that, but those of us listening to the emerging church---and I am listening to a diverse group of emerging voices without joining any of them---are not necessarily hearing these things. Some of us are hearing a recovery of interest in the incarnation and a recovery of the importance of the Kingdom life, ministry and proclamation of Jesus. This is a good and valuable recovery. Good scholars like N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight and Stan Grenz, however, present a strong emphasis on the supremacy of Jesus and his death/resurrection for our sins and justification.
If you want to read the rest of it, click HERE.
- Jerry
Jerry, thank you for pointing me in the direction of the article by Michael Spencer. It is an interesting read. Since I put up this post, I have been immersed in most things "emerging" and this is another good reference.
It seems to me that all the bruhaha and the mudslinging that I've come across is mostly due to the "contentless labels" (hat tip: qoheleth) that all these groups are taking on. Which is why I am more in favor of calling for discipleship and discernment. For though the emerging church is theologically and biblically sound for the most part, there are "streams" that are not.
Just like Christ rubbed elbows with sinners in His lifetime so must we do the same. Ensconcing ourselves in Christian "ghettos" is definitely not in accordance with His "Great Commission". But in hobnobbing with the sinners and the tax collectors and the prostitutes, never once did Christ compromise on God's word. It was the sinners who needed to conform to Christ and that's where I have qualms with the movement.
I'm not saying that traditional evangelicals are any better. In most cases, they're worst than some of the emerging groups I've encountered. Most of the traditional evangelicals I've come across (or heard about) are no more than modern-day pharisees but regardless of where they stand, what I find myself agreeing with is their theological staunchness.
At any rate, I will end with a quote from Mark Driscoll, who may be one of the more articulate proponents of the emerging church:
"Therefore, it is very important that any church seeking to be emerging define whether it is an emerging evangelical church or an emergent liberal church. Our church is emerging and missional in its practice and evangelical and biblical in its theology."
Grace and peace,
Arien
Post a Comment