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.
-Mark Driscoll, Senior Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle
Like a lot of people, I've been interested recently in the Emergent Church. I'll confess up front that I have not read the books or been to the seminars. I've heard a few sermons (online) that could probably be described as Emergent but have not been to an actual service. My experience has been more through reading blogs, articles and a fair amount of basic online research. It's an interesting movement, one that at first glance has a lot about it that's attractive. But the more I've read, the more concerned I've become about certain aspects of the movement.
Over the past few months I've seen Why We're Not Emergent referenced several times in various blogs and articles. I've been excited to read it for a while now and I'm glad I finally got around to it. This is an important book and essential reading for anyone who is part of, looking to join, or just interested in learning about the Emergent Church.
One of the big frustrations with the Emergent movement is that it can be just about impossible to define. In some ways this is a virtue (and Emergent leaders would see at such). It allows for more diversity of opinion and thought, and that's largely good. The problem comes when that group virtue gets applied at an individual level. Just as the movement as a whole is tough to pin down, so are the individual views of its leaders. About a week ago I read a response from Emergent leader Brian McLaren to a question about whether homosexuality is sinful or not. After going through his very lengthy reply twice I still had no idea what his view was.
The book does a great job documenting cases like this. The authors dig deep into the Emergent views on the virtues of uncertainty. Now, I'm personally a great believer that doubt and uncertainty are tools God uses to help us grow. I've seen it in my life countless times. But I also believe we aren't meant to wallow in uncertainty forever. God doesn't mean for us to spend a lifetime in doubt about everything. The latter part of my view is not shared by many Emergent leaders who seem more interested in what we can't know than what God has told us.
The implications of this are very problematic. Take the low view of Scripture held by many Emergent leaders. The book quotes Stan Grenz saying, "It is not the Bible as a book that is authoritative, but the Bible as the instrumentality of the Spirit." That sounds nice at first but what happens when two different people claim the Spirit has told them two different things about the Bible? Is it all just a matter of personal interpretation? At some point we need to trust God that He communicated an authoritative message to us in His word or else what good is it? The authors also discuss how well Emergent leaders will claim respect and love for the Bible, they aren't comfortable with adjectives like infailable, absolute, inerrent, etc. That's a problem.
Even more troublesome than the Emergent love of unending uncertainity is what you can pin them down on. Talking about the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (the beautiful doctrine that Jesus took the place we should have had on the cross) Brian McLaren writes, "It sounds like divine child abuse." On the same topic, Steve Chalke says that if doctrine is true, God was repaying evil with evil.
It doesn't get much better. At one point they quote Rob Bell, pastor of the other Mars Hill Church, talking about how we put too big of an emphasis on the resurrection. His argument is that if we look to Christ for salvation our attitude is selfish since we're just trying to get something out of it. Instead we should just try and live like Jesus. The first part of this breaks my heart. Is there any event more glorious in human history than the resurrection? Can he be so blind he's missed completely the victory, the life, that was won in that moment? The second part sounds nice but how are we to do that without the new life Christ brings us through His resurrection? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not all that good at living like Jesus. I need a constant outpouring of the grace He died for at the cross. I need, every moment of every day, the transforming power of His resurrection and acension.
When I first started this book I was angry about a lot of what I was reading. Having finished it, I feel more sad than anything else. There's a lot the Emergent Church gets right. Their emphasis on relationship, both with God and others, is wonderful. But on what foundation is it built? If you strip away all the doctrine and orthodoxy all the good stuff falls apart. What's happening in a lot of Emergent circles is heart breaking. Hearing Christians compare God to an abusive father tears me up. Hearing the miracle of the cross pushed aside by Christians leaves me speachless.
I don't want to end this post on a downer. God has promised that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Emergent Church is hardly the gates of hell. Even in its imperfections I believe God is using it for good, just like He promised. If nothing else, this book has inspired me to pray and pray hard for the leaders and followers in the Emergent Church. May their hearts be healed where they've been wounded by bad experiences in more "traditional" churches. May they be willing to see Jesus not just through the lens of personal interpretation but the Christ of the Gospels, risen and alive. And when they look at God may they see not an abusive parent but a loving Father who gave everything so that He could save us.
3 comments:
I've been DYING to read this book, maybe I'll have to borrow it from you.
I'm no stranger to the Emergent discussion, in fact I've considered myself a friend of the Emerging Church movement. Many of the thoughts and ideas within the emerging church resonate with me. I've read countless books, heard seminars, and even discussed in person with some of the EC leaders (Tony Jones, and Mark Oestricher specifically) some of basics of the EC movement.
I too have become very wary of some of the things that have been said w/in the EC movement. Philosophically, I'm about 90% in agreement, theologically about 50%. I get concerned when the substitutionary atonement thing is messed with. You and I are in full agreement.
All that to say that Mark Driscoll has become my newest favorite guy within this movement, along with Alan Hirsch. Driscoll's book "Radical Reformission" just rocked my world, and if you haven't read "The Shaping of Things to Come" yet, I'll lend it to you. Tell you what, I'll trade you books. The one you just read for this one. It redefined the way that I look at the EC.
I no longer consider myself "emergent" but I'm much more "missional" thanks to the influence of these two men.
I'm up for some book swapping. That Alan Hirsch book looks great.
I completely agree with you about Mark Driscoll. A good friend of mine goes to Mars Hill in Seattle so I've kind of gotten an inside look at what goes on there. It's a great church that has made real efforts to engage the culture without compromising on doctrine.
I think the distinction you and others make between emergent and missional is essential to this discussion. One is doing what the church has always done: changing the way we do church to meet cultural changes. The other seems more interested in changing doctine and theology to meet the culture.
That touches on one troublesome aspect I didn't mention in my post. I think there's a sort of arrogance in some emergent thought that everyone else has gotten it wrong for 2,000 years and now we've got it right. Even if their views are correct, a little more humility and respect for tradition would be a very good thing.
I hope you will write more on this, Ben. This is very interesting and informative. You mentioned that God will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Of course, you are right! However, I couldn't help but think of how Paul, in his letter to the Galations, says that if anyone should preach to them a gospel other than what they received, that person should be accursed. Then he repeats it for emphasis. Paul had a zero tolerance policy when it came to word games and messing around with the glorious yet simple truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We should firmly stand with him all these centuries later.
Post a Comment