« Elephant in the Boardroom: A Crisis Transition Plan For Your Church | Main | Conflict? Ask Ken: Is Bibilical Forgiveness Conditional? Yes! »
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Is the Emergent Church Movement a Threat to the Gospel?
This is the first part of a two series blog entry (Check Friday for the next entry and a response)…
Here is an interesting article on “The Emerging Church” written by David Roach at BPNews.net:
In a book entitled "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church," which is scheduled to be published in June by Zondervan, theologian D.A. Carson defines the Emerging Church Movement as a group of people who believe the church must use new modes of expressing the Gospel as western culture adopts a postmodern mindset.
"At the heart of the 'movement' ... lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is 'emerging,'" writes Carson, who serves as research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill. "Christian leaders must therefore adapt to this emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation."
According to Carson, the movement arose as a protest against the institutional church, modernism and seeker-sensitive churches.
At times it is difficult to identify with precision the participants and parameters of the movement, he writes.
Carson acknowledges that the Emerging Church Movement has encouraged evangelicals to take note of cultural trends and has emphasized authenticity among believers.
He criticizes the movement, however, for a reductionistic understanding of modernism and an inappropriate dismissal of confessional Christianity.
Carson asserts that some Emerging Church leaders are "painfully reductionistic about modernism and the confessional Christianity that forged its way through the modernist period" and that they "give the impression of dismissing" Christianity.
Carson argues that many thinkers in the movement shy away from asserting that Christianity is true and authoritative.
He also argues that the Emerging Church Movement frequently fails to use Scripture as the normative standard of truth and instead appeals to tradition.
In response to Carson, McLaren told Baptist Press that "Dr. Carson doesn't understand us."
McLaren, who is the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church near Baltimore, Md., and was listed as one of 25 influential evangelicals by TIME magazine, said that he rejects the label "movement" to describe the Emerging Church.
"I generally don't even use the term movement at this point," he said. "I think it's more of a conversation. It's a group of people who are talking about the Gospel and church and mission, especially in terms of changes going on in our culture that some people call a shift from modern to postmodern culture."
In contrast to the cultural imperialism demonstrated by believers in the past, McLaren believes Christians should present Christianity through loving attitudes rather than logical arguments.
"Those of us in the west now ... realize that there were a lot of bad consequences of European and American people trying to tell everybody else how things are," he said. "We feel that there's got to be a lot more humility and a lot more gentleness and that the Gospel is made credible not by how we argue and make truth claims. But it's made credible by the love and the good deeds that flow from our lives and our community."
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., questions McLaren's claim to be giving a credible witness for the Gospel. In an Internet commentary posted on crosswalk.com Mohler argues that McLaren's claim to uphold historic Christian faith and simultaneously avoid articulating truth in propositional form is self-contradictory.
Responding to McLaren's book, "A Generous Orthodoxy," Mohler writes, "Embracing the worldview of the postmodern age, he embraces relativism at the cost of clarity in matters of truth and intends to redefine Christianity for this new age, largely in terms of an eccentric mixture of elements he would take from virtually every theological position and variant."
"... As a postmodernist, he considers himself free from any concern for propositional truthfulness, and simply wants the Christian community to embrace a pluriform understanding of truth as a way out of doctrinal conflict and impasse."
Mohler charges McLaren with speaking about clear-cut issues in an unbiblical and ambiguous manner.
"When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teaching of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this movement simply refuses to answer the questions," Mohler writes.
"A responsible theological argument must acknowledge that difficult questions demand to be answered. We are not faced with an endless array of doctrinal variants from which we can pick and choose.
"Homosexuality either will or will not be embraced as normative. The church either will or will not accept a radical revisioning of the missionary task. We will either see those who have not come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as persons to whom we should extend a clear gospel message and a call for decision, or we will simply come alongside them to tell our story as they tell their own."
McLaren answers Mohler by saying that he is seeking to contextualize the Gospel as many Southern Baptists do. At times contextualizing the Gospel may mean encouraging people to become followers of Jesus without encouraging them to become a part of the institutional church, McLaren added.
"Dr. Albert Mohler is one of the people who have talked about this," McLaren said. "But yet there are many Southern Baptists who are doing this very thing. ... Many missionaries are ... realizing that the issue isn't whether a person identifies with a religion that now is seen as a western European religion. But the important thing is to help people identify with Jesus and become followers of Jesus."
When asked whether a person must trust Christ as dying to make atonement for sin in order to be a Christian, McLaren replied, "I want to help people understand everything they can about the cross. ... I wouldn't say that having that understanding (Jesus dying as a substitute for sinful humanity) is all that it means to be a Christian. I think that some people might have that understanding and not be interested in following Jesus. They want Jesus' blood to pay for their sins so they can go to heaven, but they aren't really interested in following Jesus in this life."
McLaren declined to give his opinion on the morality of homosexuality, saying that the issue has become inappropriately political.
"I have my own opinions, but I don't believe that the smartest thing for me to do is to go around and make those varying opinions a reason to separate myself from other Christians," he said. "I fellowship with Christians who have a diversity of opinion of this (homosexuality)."
Because of his views on salvation and other issues, the Kentucky Baptist Convention recently withdrew an invitation for McLaren to speak at the convention's evangelism conference Feb. 28-March 1.
"I respect Dr. McLaren greatly and have appreciated his insight on reaching people in today's culture," KBC executive director Bill Mackey said. "We try to bring dynamic speakers to the Evangelism Conference who will challenge and inspire their listeners. I felt that in this instance, however, Dr. McLaren's position diverges too greatly to be appropriate for this conference."
Mohler concludes that McLaren and other leaders in the Emergent Church represent "a significant challenge to biblical Christianity."
"Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind," Mohler writes.
"The worldview of postmodernism -- complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth -- affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw."
What do you think?
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
March 30, 2005 in Leadership Issues | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d8343ec80953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Emergent Church Movement a Threat to the Gospel?:
Comments
I believe and reafirm that the old-fashioned power of the blood of Jesus is still all efficient and all we need to win over the wiles of the enemy. And altimately what is derived out of His blood is an order that cannot be changed, that is the word of God from the begining of Gen. to the end of Rev.
Posted by: Rev. Ralph .V | Mar 30, 2005 12:06:49 PM
In regards to this Emergent Church movement I have already seen the affects of this philosophy attacking young people. Recently, I spoke with a college student who claimed to be a Christian and yet believed the Word of God was not infallible. She went on to say that it didn't demonstrate equality between men and women and therefore was flawed in it's authority. She valued the book but did not accept it has the ultimate answer for guiding her life. Also, in regards to homosexuality, she completely disregarded the writings of Paul to the Corinthians concerning this matter. I shared with her that the Bible was not written to appeal to what we see as right but what God determines as truth. For us to disregard the Bible as the ultimate authority would undercut the very foundation in which we believe. I told her that the reason why you struggle with these difficult issues is not that the Bible is flawed or somehow unfair, but that you do not except God's authority over man's will to determine his own destiny. After all I told her that mankind from birth longs for boundaries. What if we decided that man was to determine what is the right way? Doesn't that mean that God no longer is needed to guide our lives? How can we on one hand acknowlege's God existance as the creator of man then turn around and say He doesn't know what is best for us. Sure you can argue that it was man that wrote those words placed on the pages of that Bible, but don't you think that God was big enough to have the final say on what was true. There will always be debates on interpretation of scripture, but we must acknowledge that those books and chapters have survived the test of time. Kings and kindoms could prevent it being translated and put into man's hand. Governments couldn't keep it from being read in secret. How then can we question it's authority. If you cannot believe it in faith then just follow it's history. What is Christianity without biblical authority? Nothing more than a religion leaving man to search for what he really longs for(a relationship with God).
Posted by: Pete King | Mar 30, 2005 1:20:23 PM
I can't believe what I am hearing so far. There appears to be all these comments about the Emergent church conversation without much thought to its overall purpose. This is an opportunity for people in different branches of Christian tradition to sit down and discuss how to share the Gospel in a postmodern age. It is not as if there are a group a young Christians trying to deconstruct Christianity in the modern world. Christianity is being deconstructed by a postmodern culture that is the present reality of the western world. It is not about accomendation as much as it is about developing methods that speak to this culture. The message is still the same. Mr. Mclaren is not only a brillant thinker but a thoughtful person, as well. There is a sense of fear in many of these comments about the "emergent church." My question is: What are you so afraid of? Many church leaders feel that the Gospel of Jesus will be watered down to weak statements of faith and that pluralism will spread like wildfire. I believe we all underestimate the power of Jesus Christ across all cultures (including modernism). I encourage critics to sit down with some of these leaders, like Mclaren and have an open discussion. I think you would be surprised by what you hear. Don't draw conclusions by what you hear and read.
In regards to the "emergent" view of scripture, there is no doubt that some folks on the movement have questioned the facts on sections of scripture. But if you did read Generous Orthodoxy by Mclaren, you would see that he holds the Bible in high regards and that he views it as authorative. We all need to admit that the Bible has several contradictions and errors (mostly when it comes to conflicting facts). The postmodern world is going to continue to point this out, whether you like it or not. Isn't it about time we focused more on the Bible through the eyes of Jesus. The fact of the matter is that despite its minor errors (and they are minor), God continues to use the Bible to inspire and lead people in the direction of the Kingdom of God.
Honestly, I appreciate your point of view and I can understand your concerns. I look forward to understanding why people are so scared. My request is that you take the time to understand Mr. Mclaren and those of us who are leading emergent church discussions. We may make mistakes, but you can't say that your generation is blemish free.
Posted by: Curtis | Mar 30, 2005 2:38:18 PM
I have heard of this book many times in conversations, but I have never read it. Sounds like to me we are twisting and turning the Gospel to fit our way of thinking. In todays world people don't believe in absolute truth. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. They can admit it in this world or the next, but someday they will. My prayer is that they come to know Christ in this life so they can know Him for eternity.
With all Respect
Posted by: Jade | Mar 30, 2005 2:57:19 PM
I would like this conversation to include some folks who understand the emergent point of view. Without participation, we're having a monologue not a dialogue necessary for fuller understanding and appreciation.
Posted by: Mark | Mar 30, 2005 3:05:08 PM
The Emergent movement is not a threat to the Gospel, however represents a line of thought that the established church must deal with in a truly Biblical way.
The younger (and not-so-young) people are not questioning Biblical authority as much as they are questioning the authority of those who seem to claim an infallible interpretation of the Bible.
This generation has grown up seeing televangelists and preachers with a microphone in one hand and a brick in the other. If you question what you hear, even if the question is aimed at enlarging your understanding, out comes the brick. It's "my way or the highway".
Yes, man is searching for a relationship with God, but for many (more each day), they are not finding Him in the church. They seek Jesus, but are given Paul. They seek truth, but are given Leviticus. They seek community with other believers, but are shown the door if they ask the wrong questions, pick the wrong mate, vote for the wrong party, or have the wrong color skin. They find themselves in the middle in an "in" or "out", "true" or "false" world. They are baffled when Jesus calls them in and men kick them out.
The Emergent movement may catch on or it may not, we've all seem movements come and go. The questioning, however, will continue, even if the established church cannot engage those with different ideas and allow both sides to learn and grow.
Posted by: joe | Mar 30, 2005 3:05:11 PM
"Minor errors in the Bible"? Hmmmm... sounds like you're reading it without regards to the spirit/styles/idioms the individual psalms/books/pericopes et cetera are written in. Understanding how and why things were written clears these "errors" all up quite nicely.
We're picking on McLaren as if he's the whole "emergent movement" in and of himself, and that's not very fair. But with regards to him, and I've only read 3 of his books, including "A Generous Orthodoxy", he has a maddening habit of not actually telling us what he believes. About salvation, the authority of Scripture, etc. I enjoyed reading "Orthodoxy" but came away from it knowing no more about what he believes than when I started.
It is SO dangerous to take little pieces of theology from different places and piece them together because they make a warm blanket that makes us feel better, but it's also ridiculous, not from a scriptural standpoint, but rather from a common-sense one! No serious scientist would do that! When all this shakes out in the next few years, it will be obvious who had a right understanding of who Christ is and who didn't, who made up stuff to fill in the gaps and make themselves feel better and who didn't, who dismissed the Bible's statements against things like homosexuality because it was uncomfortable and who totally forgot about loving their neighbor on the other "end of the spectrum".
Can I call myself "post-emergent"??? Will that make me the cool theologian of the week and get me a book deal with Zondervan. ;-) I could use the dough!
Posted by: Peter | Mar 30, 2005 4:23:34 PM
Gentlemen,
Please don't missunderstand me. I believe in the concept of loving the world and showing Christ's concern for through compassion. Being a man who questions life and belief I understand the desire to truly know the truth in it's entirety. However, what frightens me the most is our separating parts from the whole. I'm not sure if we will agree here, but I believe every aspect of scripture either points to or is directly related to Christ. In other words, we cannot separate Liviticus from Jesus and Paul from Jesus. The question then lies in how do they point to Christ? As far as offending the sinner should not be the goal of the Postmodern day Church but the Bible is clear that man cannot serve two master's he either serves one or the other. When a sinner is revealed his sin he feels remorse and guilt. These expressions are a result of their separation from God and how can we disregard conviction for sin. I believe we can point out the sin and not destroy the sinner. It's unfortunate that God's process though painful is viewed as "my way or the Highway". If you read the Old Testament you find God repeatedly punishing Isreal for their sin, however just like In Issaiah chapter 38 God is not just trying to punish Isreal but He is trying to restore the relationship with His people. Let's not mistake conviction for cruel and unusual punishment. It is a process we all must face if we are going to realize our separation from God. If the Postmodern church is defining the process of calling sinners to repentance a wrongful process then we need question if we are really followers of Christ. Let us not forget that Jesus came to his own and His own recieved Him not. He called the religious leaders of the day vipers. Doesn't sound so Postmodern but he knew their hearts. They needed to know they were offending and abusing the house of God.
Posted by: Pete King | Mar 30, 2005 4:39:00 PM
Mohler states:"A responsible theological argument must acknowledge that difficult questions demand to be answered."
I think one of the problems here is that we have tried to definitively answer every difficult question (hence "systemmatic" theology). We've told the rest of the world that we can fit everything into a nice, neat little package. But the truth is that we don't have every possible answer. The Bible is a perfect treasure for sure, but it isn't exhaustive on every possible issue. We have put into concrete what the Bible left in sand. What translates is arrogance and hypocrisy. Be gentle.
Posted by: Danny | Mar 30, 2005 4:52:13 PM
I have read Dr. McLaren's books and have attended a recent conference in Fresno California, hosted by Fresno Pacific University. I have to say that these new views (if you want to call them that) are a breath of fresh air. I have been a Christian since I was six years old, brought up in the faith, baptized, mentored, studied for the minsitry and I am astounded of how narrow-minded, small hearted, graceless, and faithless we conservative-evangelicals have been. I can see why missionaries become such. The affluence of the "modern" church and excesses of controller leaders, in my perspective have all but killed the "spirit" of the gospel. The diminshing of values and scripture of our youth isn't because of an Emergent-Church perspective, its because "we" the church have been more about mouthing beliefs than living a vibrant, authentic faith before them. I'm 55 years old, a pastor for 20 years, father of six, grandparent to five and I've seen it all. And the most devastating dynamic, is we have fooled ourselves to think we are going to win a generation with talking theology, doctrine and church ethics. People are starving for genuine faith, hope, fathomless mercy, and living Scriptural relevance, not just eloquently phrased doctrine. Like I said I'm a pastor and I will continue to give my life for the church. But the church (leaders)have got to get off their high horse of saying all the right "BUZZ" words, thinking that's real religion or faith. We have got to start "living" what Jesus talked about. What I've seen and heard, are the religious trying to stay in the comfort of their own individual theologies and all the time we've become 21st Century Pharisees. We want to preserve our little piece of secure religion. Everyone else needs to come our way, to our way of thinking, our perspecitive. Our words need to be seasoned with more than what I've seen directed towards homosexuals, divorcees, ethnic minorities, drug users, prostitutes and the likes. We've done a pretty lowsey job of reconciling divorcees to the church. Even the victims of divorce lay in a heap of loneliness and being disconnected because of a sense that they might "contaminate" the righteous. Yes, sin is a central issue, but so are our cold judgemental hearts.We are pretty good at quoting scripture which marginalizes and judge, but I see very little true reconciliation and broken hearts for the lost. At least Dr. McLaren and others like Alan Roxburgh are seeking how to help the church equip itself to win our culture to Jesus, not to the SBC, or any other denomination. Let's see if we can win the lost to Jesus and let HIM clean them up. I for one am excited that someone has had the courage to stand up and say, "church we have a problem, can we look at the heart of Jesus and learn from Him, instead of sticking to the party-line?" I'm passionate about my Lord Jesus and the ministry of the church. And my passion orginates from my own hunger and desire to see "Christ be formed in me". Transformation, regeneration, new-birth, metamorphasis these are the words of the resurrection. Since we just celebrated that glorious DAy, can we now have it live in our lives and not just a nice yearly celebration? The world is looking for a church that will live the resurrection not just have a nice Sunday production of the event.
Posted by: James Ziessler | Mar 30, 2005 5:01:28 PM
Let's look at some facts:
-Church attendance is clearly on the decline in America.
-Most people who are considered "unchurched Christians" are so because they desire a faith that is more relational than merely "taught."
-All data shows that the trend of the younger generations will continue to be to disconnect themselves from the rigidly-structured institutions of their parents.
One question is: Why is this happening?
I've been studying the so-called "emerging church" movement for some time and I see both promising signs as well as some concerns.
The promising signs is that because the younger generations are growing up in an informational age (i.e., internet), knowledge concerning faith is far more readily available. Because of that, a clear discrepancy becomes obvious between what the younger generation is learning about "church" and what their parents have been told what "church" is. In other words, because there is more information available with differing opinions as to what constitutes "church" than their parents have had, the younger generation is becoming increasingly more distrusting of the institutionalized church.
This is promising because there are those who are attempting to address the problem of reaching the younger generation with the gospel. Albeit, some methods appear strange or unbiblical, mostly because it's just different to the rigid "sit in the pew, shut up and take it" mentality that most of the older generation was raised in. The use of candles, art and dance, for example, is an attempt to look into the past at what is thought to have been used in Christian gatherings. While this is debatable, I appreciate the move to reclaim and utilize the practices of the ancient church. As a result, the gatherings are far more casual and inviting than the stiff-necked, cold gatherings of most fellowships in America.
One of the problems that I have with the "emerging church" movement (a poor term to use because every successive generation will be emerging at some point in the future), is that in addition to some comments made in the effort to appear more palatable to the younger generations, a more watered-down view of the gospel is used. This is dangerous because "dumbing down" anything only results in dumb people and worse: people who may think they know God when they don't.
I know of several alleged "experts" of the "emerging church" movement who readily accept fellowships that are openly and boisterously homosexual. Such recognition, in my opinion, grossly misrepresents the Scriptures.
Another issue that I'm concerned with is, while the "emerging church" desires to reach into the past, they don't go far enough in reclaiming a more purer representation of the character of the Body of Christ, both ancient and present.
They maintain much of the structure that has crippled the institutionalized church and thus have become "institutionalized church lite." Candles, art and dance can never sustain what the open, free, participatory practices of the Early Church so eagerly engaged in. It is no wonder that many emerging church gatherings are offshoots of dying denominations.
Finally, the use of the term "missional" in describing themselves appears to me at least to be an over-emphasis on socialistic endeavors (i.e., feeding the poor, et al) wrapped in the name of "Christianity." While we must look to helping all that we can, we must first, as the Early Church did, take care of each other, which is one of the unique characteristics that caught the eye of the beholding society of the time and led to "people being added to the church daily."
As I've stated, I see great promise in the emerging church movement because it further weakens the death-grip that the institutionalized church has had on the throat of the Body of Christ for centuries. However, for us to truly become the Church, as delienated in Scripture, we must move all the way back to the First Century while, at the same time, remaining pure in how we present the gospel to today's generation in a way that doesn't compromise its message.
Posted by: Ricky Roubique | Mar 30, 2005 5:11:58 PM
Brothers and Sisters,
This discussion is the framwork for what the emergent church discussion is all about. It is obvious that we all come from various backgrounds and viewpoints. I agree with the last posting (Ricky) on some of his concerns with this movement. There appears to be a generalization that many leaders in the emergent discussion are not primarily biblical or, in that manner, scholarly. Using Mclaren as the only voice of the emergent church discussion is unfair. Mclaren, himself has admited that he does not have any major training in a seminary. While attending the Emergent convention last February, I was fortunate to hear some of these viewpoints alongside practictioners like Mclaren. My point is that this discussion goes far beyond the "missional" theme and ancient-future practices. It has been (at times) academic, as well as relational.
While there are voices out there that appear downright heretical, there are some out there who are seeking ways to follow Jesus in a post-christian world. We are not an emerging church. We are a church where Christ is still the head.
Thanks to all for your honesty!
Posted by: Curtis | Mar 30, 2005 6:10:46 PM
i have some issues with the so-called emergent movement...however, the conservative evangelical theologians responding are reactionary at best, choosing to underscore the fallacies in the movement rather than trying to understand (rather than simply list them) what about evangelicalism spawned the emergent stream in the first place, then perhaps the body of Christ would be better served...
Posted by: praxidoxy | Mar 30, 2005 6:30:59 PM
To address something that Curtis mentioned regarding the alleged lack of "scholarly training" by some in the emerging church, I would like to add that much of the problem with the Church today is that there has been far too much emphasis placed on learning all the nuances of the Christian faith instead of living it.
I think this is one of the issues that has served as an impetus for the emerging church. We need to begin the process of reevaluating all of the theology that we have been taught by those who were students of many who had it wrong to begin with.
This is a generational problem (i.e., the emphasis on academic faith) that has spawned a generational response from the younger generation and for which I am thankful.
In essence, this "movement" is a response of rebellion; not against God or the gospel but against the archaic, man-made structures that were doomed to fall from the very beginning.
Bring it on, Lord!
Posted by: Ricky Roubique | Mar 30, 2005 9:44:42 PM
The seeds of this "Emergent Church" has been in process for several years. Back in 2000 (which seems like a long time ago!) publishers such as Youth Specialties and Group had created entire lines of curriculum and materials based on expieriential (sp?) and ancient/modern practices. It was effective in reaching & teaching young people who had a fairly solid Christian/Church background. These young people had a wonderful, authentic passion for Christ, but they were also pressed between two worlds. One was their day-to-day world bathed in a post-modern relativism. The other was a rigid church "world" that was not open to their desire for a more expressive and authentic church/worship/Christ experience.
Other kids who didn't have a solid or consistant Christian/Church backgound responded differently. I worked to reach them not only through some curriculum or ancient/modern practice but through caring relationships. I trying to reach them with the love of Christ and not doctrine. Many responded but only to a point. They got something out of it and even understood that a relationship with Jesus Christ was a good thing but make a commitment? No way. It was simply another choice that was there if they needed it.
Now you have this Emergent Church movement which it think is also defined as "Post-Modern Reformation." (I was given that title/discription by a college student.) It seems that those who had a more consistant Christian background are reveling in it! They love the ancient/modern expression in worship and as a Worship Leader, I find the music aspect wonderful! They are passionate about Christ and seem to have that authentic community relationship that so often expressed with the emergent church. My concern is for the others. Yes, they'll come close and enjoy the relationship, the "feel," the spiritually and acceptance of differing opinions but commitment? Not likey. Like before, it's a PART of their life to be used or experienced as needed or desire. But when it comes to a clear choice, they will often keep it "gray." The problem with that, is that according to all I know, in the end, heaven and hell is pretty black and white issue not to be soft peddled. Ben E.
Posted by: Ben E. | Mar 31, 2005 1:32:28 AM
I wonder if heaven will be a bunch of discussion of systematic theology? I love that we can talk about this so let me give my two cents and do it quick. I have been in church my whole life. I grew up baptist, then went tranfered over to wesleyan. For those of you that have no idea the diffence between these two denominations, it is like night and day. It is the arminian vs calvin debate. I went to a wesleyan school where I heard why we were right and the "calvanist" where wrong. I say all this to say that even in the conservative churches there is huge theological, and philosophical argument going on. I do believe in the infalablitly of scripture, but I believe in the falabily of those who read and interpret it. Even in Corinthians Paul talks about our understanding being like looking through a clouded mirror, or window. God says in Isaiah to this person I will look, he who is humble and contrite in spirit and who tribles at His word. Lets drop the ego, and let God talk to us, through His Holy Spirit and His Holy Word. The desciples that Jesus chose where a bounch of uneducated drop outs, not the educated elite. It is the educated elite that have made so much division in the church. This crap is not this complicated. I don't see the faith or charater of a child in all this discussion. I don't know as much as the rest of you, but after reading it I guess I would rather stay unread.
Posted by: Josh Wright | Mar 31, 2005 1:47:04 AM
What a great discussion this is! Just reading everyone's comments has been very informative. I have not been extremely familiar with this topic and it has been very educational. I of course, have only had as I stated earlier debates with classmates regarding the school of thought. From what I am hearing from many of you is a need for change in our approach to winning the lost. I agree we need to think in a direction that speaks to where people are. But just Like Ben said, "lets teach people to make a commitment to doing what God wants not just create an atmospere that says this is just another option for you to choose." I guess what I am afraid of here is we eliminating the exclusive aspect of Christianity. In our efforts to change from a threatening Gospel there is the potential to remove the fact that there is only one way to Heaven. And that way is through salvation through Jesus Christ. In the case of the debate with my classmate, she was incapable of allowing the Gospel to be exclusive. However, that's where we get into trouble. When we define a Gospel that allows other avenues to God. In other words relativism. Unfortunately that undercuts the character of Christ found in the bible. As we look at the Old and New Testament we find an overall theme that man cannot save themselves. A priest wasn't holy enough and lamb was pure enough to cover our sin. All of this is pointing to the concept of an exclusive Gospel where only Jesus is the way to the Father.
Posted by: Pete King | Mar 31, 2005 8:34:02 AM
Pete said:
"From what I am hearing from many of you is a need for change in our approach to winning the lost."
I don't think it's a change as to how we "win the lost," but rather how we can learn to become the Church, the Body of Christ, as represented in the New Testament.
Evangelism, at least the biblical understanding of it, is not accomplished through programs, crusades or even how well someone preaches, but rather is best accomplished as the result of being witnessed. I am not "witnessing" in the old Baptist way (i.e., Roman Road, et al), but rather how society views firsthand how the Body of Christ interacts with itself and to the degree the presence of Jesus Christ is visibly seen among His people as they gather.
This is the single most dynamic trait that the Early Church had and the church today has lost. Today we come together, not to minister to the Lord or to each other, but rather to sit our tushes in a plush pew and listen to someone talk at us. This is not the biblical understanding of Church.
Instead, when we come together and EVERYONE has a psalm, hymn and a spiritual song and we exercise those gifts, an incarnation occurs. It is this incarnation that draws people to Him and serves as the most effective evangelism there is.
So, let's not just look at how to reach the lost, but rather how to become the Church, as represented in the Scriptures.
Posted by: Ricky Roubique | Mar 31, 2005 3:41:54 PM
This is an interesting discussion, as I was looking forward to it once I saw the topic was coming up. Having been interested in the whole movement, and having started attending a church with one of the emergent discussion senior fellows pastoring it is great to hear what everyone has to say. There are a few things I have recently learned, or I guess understood by listening to what McLaren AND OTHERS are saying, and I wanted to offer them in light of what is being said, as I believe they are being ignored or misunderstood.
I will mainly take the role of pro-emergent since this board seems short of people of that persuasion, although I could argue for the other position if I chose. To give you a quick idea of who I am, I am a 22 yr. old college drop-out who grew up in the post-modern generation and is currently church planting in the 10/40 window in partnership with a well-known sending agency.
But first I think that it should be understood that what we are looking at is a different way of doing things, a movement of sorts, though emergent people won't call it that. I emphasize that point, because I think that every type of movement inside or outside of the church contains a lot of truth, but certainly falls short of being innerant. Look at communism, democracy, socialism, or different schools of thought in philosophy. All take some extreme definitive truth based claims to defend their position, but none are perfect and without critisism.
I mention this, because while I believe there are somethings which are extremely useful and at times superior to other approaches currently being employed by the church, there are still some problems. The whole emergent CONVERSATION, and I stress conversations, insists that it is not taking a stance of idiological completion, because quite frankly it isn't. I really enjoy the fact that emergent is made up a group of people who are discussing how to do something that the status quo isn't. While the status quo is failing and dieing, the emergents are at least looking to do something to prevent this.
To highlight something that was quite startling to me, when I was in college (2 years ago) in a more rural school of about 7,000 students (which was located among a more traditional population) less than 1.5% of the students attended a church, and I would argue that less than that were true followers of Christ. (I don't know what the statistics are nation-wide, but I wouldn't be suprised if that is normative.)
I would however, not be surprised if more people than that 1.5% had prayed that Jesus be Lord of their life at a younger age and were later the same people I saw filling their weekends (and weekdays) with sex, drugs and alcohol.
What I am trying to point-out, if you have not clearly already observed this in our churches, is that the status quo, conservative evangelical church IS NOT reaching our young people and leading to seeing Christ change their lives. It isn't happening, and at this rate, I would not be surprised if in 50 years America is no different spiritually than Europe. I think this is what Emergent is trying to change.
There are a few things which I have found helpful in my witness in America.
The first is a definition of the true postmodernism which exists. It is NOT a denial of all absolute truth! That statement is an oxymoron, and there are few if any average postmoderns who will defend it. Instead I believe they see the church and the conservative-right, which I believe the church has fatally attached itself to as a threat. They see them as a powerful bueracracy, which intends to justify exerting power over them, whether they agree or not, by refering to a supreme heavenly law, which these postmoderns don't even believe in. These groups (which may not be a majority, but do certainly make the most noise) are in many ways to these post-moderns today what the catholic church was to Jews and non-believers hundreds of years ago. Do you think any Jew of that time would listen to catholic reasoning with them from logic why they should become catholic?
That being said, are we killing people in sick and horrible ways? No. But, we are seeking the same type of politcal dominance, and among post-moderns, it is not the way to be heard. Just like missions abroad, we MUST earn the right to be heard! This means that we must find a new approach to that.
Another thing I have really benefitted from, is understanding that post-modernism lends people to value somethings which our modernist Christian mindsets do not provide. Instead of trying to battle postmodernism (which has very decidely won that battle) why can't we contextualize towards emphasis of those things which postmoderns value and praise them for those values?
A biblical example is the unknown god, and how Paul uses that as a doorway to sharing. These people believed in many gods, but Paul did not attack that, but praised them for searching for a god they didn't know. Post-moderns aren't looking for a way of thinking, or a way of systematizing things, but for a way of living. Why can't we show them the beauty of the life of Christ, and His person, and allow that to be the thing which lends authority to Jesus and His teachings.
The third (and last thing I will mention here) thing I have benefited from is an emergent view of scripture. I believe that it has widend my understanding of scripture. It is not just some encyclopedia to be referenced for information on a particular subject or the reinforcement of a rigid doctrine, nor is it a devotional book. It is a beautiful book, filled with the knowledge of who God and Christ are. It is also a story to be read as a whole. It is many things, most of which I can't begin to list here, but since listening to some of the emergent leaders, I have come treasure the scriptures far more and want to memorize them all. I think this along with the fact that the emergent movement is more more rooted in theology than this blog would lead you to believe have also contributed to my appreciation of some of the things being said within the discussion.
The pathway emergent is traveling down certainly has some problems, I won't deny that at all. But, the fact is, they are much closer to finding an approach to earning the right to speak to today's post-moderns than most other evangelicals are. Most if not all young adults my age (22) will have nothing to do with you if faced with the 4 spiritual laws (a.k.a.the Romans Road), and I don't think I would either. The fact is, most of our apologetics and approaches to evangelism are so incredibly dated, that they are only effective on a very small minority. If emergent is not the way, what is? That is same question being discussed by emergent I believe.
Posted by: Samuel | Mar 31, 2005 3:51:07 PM
I enjoyed your comments Samuel and appreciate your views. As for myself, I'm a 41 yr old worship leader who's worked with students who would be in your age range. I'm theologically conservative BUT, if you asked me where my heart would be in this converstation, it would be in the emergent "camp." Yes, for most post-moderns, logical reasoning, spiritual laws and doctrine will translate into a bunch of preachy "blah, blah, blah." They HAD to be TALKED AT while in school so why would CHOOSE to be TALKED AT when it came Christ? You may have to hear the Theo/Political wrangling between conservatives & liberals which has certainly burned me out, but why would you CHOOSE to go to church and hear it? As you put it, "I don't think I would either." But, according to Christ and the scriptures, there ARE spiritual LAWS that must be considered and taught. You can tell someone about the beauty and wonder of handgliding all day long but before they take off, you had better teach them the LAWS of the physics involved or the LAW of gravity will quickly come into play and bad things will happen!
That's where the emerging church Christian background can come together in a magnificent way. It is my understand that it stems from a longing to express and experience the FREEDOM we have in Christ and not just the doctrine and/or doggma.
I myself long for that and want everyone to know the freedom of a salvation relationship with Jesus Christ.
The difference, I think, is being a Christian and having that background. We have a grasp of those spiritual laws and know that they are not a bad thing but nor or they the ONLY thing.
I think a second consideration/concern to be aware of the tendancy for us to being worshipping the "movement." (Any "movement.") The center of it must always be Christ not the technology or non-techology or the ancient/modern practices or anything else. Good discussion!
Ben E.
Posted by: Ben E. | Mar 31, 2005 5:26:45 PM
Can you imagine Paul entering the Areopagus (Acts 17) to engage his culture in an ambiguous conversation about psychological shifts in social thought..uggggggh! There is nothing new under the sun nor in "postmodernism" that cannot/should not be addressed clearly, logically and apologetically in the glaring light of exclusive Gospel declaration! The unique Truth claims of Jesus Christ articulated from the Word of God with Authority by the Power of the Holy Spirit in the market place of human ideas is the Biblical paradigm. To mess with that for some half-baked pseudo-intellectual blather is the devil's business. "Preach the Word..."
Posted by: David Liebherr | Mar 31, 2005 10:50:25 PM
Interesting discussion, I'm not sure I understand why anyone should feel "compelled" to say that the "emergent church" model is the only alternative to the "modern church" model? Given the post-modern concept of truth (an incredulity to any meta-narratives, i.e. scripture), why would a historic orthodox Christian even want to dabble with such a framework? Indeed truth has its subjective/pragmatic feature--but without its objective/propositional side there is nothing to believe/nothing to live. I.e. Objective truth we can't do without: Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose again some 2,000yrs ago (I Cor 15:1-3ff). Subjective/Experiential consequence of the fact of Jesus' death and resurrection: Now that we "know" this we should live in the reality of the crucified/resurrected life of Christ (Col 2:6-7; II Cor 4:1ff; etc.).
Indeed the Bible's emphasis is relational (John 17:3), but post-modernity is an unecessary alternative to come to this conclusion. Just reach back into church history a bit, and you'll see a discussion that might surprise you. For example people like Richard Sibbes, John Cotton, etc. advocated a theology known as "Affective Theology", which summarily emphasizes the language of marriage (ie. Song of Songs; Eph 5, I Cor 6:17)/union with Christ as not just analogous language but ontological and substantial. In other words, the emphasis indeed is focused upon relationship--without the necessity of embracing the logical conclusion of modernity in post-modernity (i.e. post-modernity stands upon the epistemological shoulders of modernity--see the "prophet" Nietzche).
Anyway, as the "emergent church", when you reach back into church history for ancient symbols for purposes of bolstering your worship services, why not dig deeper and look at the ideas/doctrine that shaped those symbols. You might be surprised by the depth and authenticity you find when you genuinely look at how Christ (Heb 13:8)moved and worked in the lives of our brothers and sisters in ages past.
I realize the tension of communicating the "gospel" in any given culture or society. The apostle Paul (see I Cor 1--4)seemed to think the using particular cultural "forms" definitely can effect the content being communicated (the cross of Christ appears foolish--to the church in Corinth--hopefully not today). Anyway, I've said enough. Thank you for the conversation . . .
Posted by: Bobby G. | Apr 1, 2005 1:34:55 PM
