Anyway, as I sit here listening to the latest attacks on Karl Rove, this time by Katie Couric (no surprise there!), and checking emails with a fellow Wi-Fi'er over a Mocha and cinnamon roll I thought I'd post some quite different thoughts I had yesterday concerning the Emergent Church Movement. I jotted down these thoughts after several hours at the beach on the belly boards with my two oldest boys, which means this ole out of shape preacher was smack tired when I wrote it! So I appreciate any patience you could afford me!
In a previous post entitled "What the Emergent Church thinks about the Gospel", I first introduced some statements by Emerging Church leaders, thinkers, and writers on what they believe the gospel to be. (And Lord willing I plan to post a "Part Two" in the next few days with more statements.) To be fair to the EC movement, they would believe that such statements, in and of themselves, could not possibly reveal everything they believe about the gospel. The way they view the effects of modernism on theology has led them to make some vital analyses and critiques about the church and the gospel in particular.
One critical analysis has been the accurate perception that theology (and especially the gospel) cannot be completely contained or retained by human language without experiencing some necessary degree of change due to the change of culture. So my very act of offering key statements, in that first post, about their view of the gospel is sort of an injustice to their way of 'doing theology.'
You see, their efforts from the start have been to avoid propositional statements about the gospel, for they rightly understand that doing so tends toward reductionism. The gospel of Jesus Christ - everything pertaining and relating to His person and work - cannot possibly be completely contained in statements constructed with human language. After all, it is an eternal and divine message, infinite and immutable with respect its nature and message. So there is simply no way that human language, which is precisely that - human, and thus finite and changeable - can possibly shape some verbal construct in which all of the gospel can be contained.
This is precisely the problem with modern evangelicalism, the ECM would argue. The gospel along with Christ - and all of theology as well - is forced into the confines of propositional statements about the gospel. But while these statements are not the good news itself, they are used so often (while ignoring the humanity and finitude and culture of language) and in such a dogmatic way (while almost 'canonizing' such statements) that they have ultimately become seen as such. Thus, the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ, through these tendencies of modern evangelicalism, has been reduced to statements about the gospel.
Let me put it another way. The failure of evangelicalism in this area just described is seen largely in its definition and understanding of the gospel only with certain key words, phrases, statements, and/or explanations. For those who have been a part of a traditional denomination long enough, the gospel is most often defined and understood, preached and taught, as: 'inviting Jesus into your heart', 'inviting Jesus into your life', 'giving your heart to God', 'accepting Him as Savior', 'receiving Christ as your Savior', 'making Jesus your Lord and Savior', 'making Jesus the Lord of your life', 'putting Jesus on the throne of your heart', 'confessing your sins', 'repenting of your sins', 'praying the sinner's prayer', etc. ad nauseum. To make matters worse, invitations to 'become a Christian' or 'join the church' are made with such offers as, 'come forward', 'walk the aisle', 'raise your hand', or 'come down to the altar.' Consequently, the person 'making a decision' comes to associate his or her 'decision for Christ' with what it means to actually be and/or become a Christian.
The problem with this more recent approach to 'gospel invitations' is two-fold.
First, as already stated, the gospel message itself comes to be identified with reductionistic statements, many of which are misleading at best. Several generations of 'Christians' and church members have come to understand a gospel which is not the authentic, biblical gospel at all. Such an approach only perpetuates the error, causing that error to be more deeply engrained with each passing generation until it becomes tradition. Then, when a few rise up who question the way in which the gospel has been traditionally understood or preached, these few find themselves the objects of scorn, mockery, and rejection by traditionalists.
The second problem with this approach is that while churches become filled with such persons - many, if not most of whom are probably not genuine believers - those same churches lose their identity in the world. The church is supposed to be the living, breathing, walking and talking hermeneutic of the gospel. Believers interpret, explain, and exposit the truth and truthfulness of the gospel not so much by what they say as by how they live and what they treasure. But if one is not a true believer to begin with, because they have confused the gospel they heard and 'accepted' with the true one, then they cannot live by it nor treasure its Person. The church is supposed to be a light to the world (Matt. 5:14). But the reason the world is not seeing our good works and glorifying God in heaven is because the light is not shining so brightly (Matt. 5:16). And the reason the light is not shining brightly is because the true gospel has become confused with a traditional one, one formulated outside the Scriptures, shaped with dogmatism, and perpetuated toward isolationism.
These two problems have come about because a gospel has been conceived, born, raised, and reproduced that absconds the true identity of a Christian. This has had the further effect of (sometimes unwittingly, or sometimes purposefully) forcing groups of such 'believers' together into an ecclesiocentric mindset, centering all their resources and skills on building their group, on 'growing' their church. Isolationism has become the unavoidable end as the church turns its attention inward, instead of focusing on itself instead of on the world as Christ initially commanded His disciples to do in the first place (Matt. 28:19-20).
For those readers who are currently in a traditional denomination (like my own Southern Baptist Convention), perhaps this is the first time you've had some of the things you may hold dear challenged in this way. If so, consider this challenge more carefully weighing it against a fresh reading of the New Testament Gospels. And for those readers who have considered this challenge before (such as my fellow Reformed brothers and sisters) and agree with this assessment and share my critique, then some of the leaders, thinkers, and writers in the Emerging Church are worth listening to, for our assessment is also theirs.
What we can stand to learn from them is the 'why', that is, why the church is where it is today, why it is so isolated from the world, why it is not having as much of an impact on the world as it should, why preaching and teaching in the local church pulpit is so weak, and why biblical discipleship is so rare. Postmodernism has a good bit to offer the church in terms of understanding these things, primarily because whether we like it or not, postmodernism is very much a result of these things. The ECM contends that the reason for these things is due largely to the influences of modernism in the gospel, those influences that have constrained and confined the gospel to specific statements and beliefs, some of which may be biblically natured, and some of which are not.
Their overall contention is noteworthy and justified, I believe, because of modern evangelicalism's insistence that the gospel can and should be reduced to 'truth statements' and 'beliefs' alone. Such things are important, to be sure, since the 'good news' we are to share with the world, must in fact be shared with words, phrases, statements, convictions, and beliefs, all of which must be verbalized in a way that communicates meaningfully and effectively with the culture to whom we share it. However, if the 'good news' is confined only to such communication, it is divorced from the equally meaningful and effective communication of lifestyle, reflected in such essentials as relationships and friendships, conversation and discussion.
Let me put it this way: we're not going to win the world with words only, no matter how true and biblical those words may be. Such a critique does not ignore at all the important role of the Holy Spirit and the sovereignty of God in the salvation of the lost in the world around us. But those Christians who are theologically 'sharp' and astute - and especially my fellow Reformed brothers and sisters - would do well to recognize that I'm not too far off the mark when I say that our biggest failure is evangelization. And even those who are evangelistically sharp and astute would even have to agree with me when I contest that such efforts are built more on dogmatic statements, beliefs, demands, and pragmatic programs and events than they are on meaningful relationships.
When our explanation and interpretation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is built more on intellectual assent to propositional truths, on the religious influences we want to see forced upon our government, and on the ecclesiocentric efforts to 'grow' our local churches, more than it is on serving the lost just as Jesus did, the world cannot help but come to view Christianity as it currently does - a religious world inhabited by a bunch of fanatic, right-wing, fundamentalistic, Bible-thumping idiots whose only recourse against the forces of paganism is a retreat to emotion, tradition, and dogmatism. That's just not the way Jesus approached the evangelization of the world, and it's not how He commanded His disciples to either. The kingdom of God is supposed to be built by teaching what Jesus taught, and baptizing in His name, as the Great Commission mandates. But! it is established upon discipleship, which can only happen by entering into meaningful relationships with lost people who will be converted partly through meaningful communication as well as loving service, and partly through the Holy Spirit's work in and through such means.
The analyses made here in this post are intended primarily as an invitation for Non-EC'ers to think. It is an invitation to think with them about their critiques and analyses, and to do so more with them rather than against them. There are definite dangers in the movement, to be sure. Some are easily identifiable, and some are not. But toward an obedient effort of a universal application of 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we must examine the Emergent Church Movement, holding tightly to the things in it which are good, and of course, abstaining from those things which are bad. So examine it with me, and more specifically, look for the good that can challenge and teach us. For if our time is spent more on critiquing and negating it, then not only are we violating the Golden Rule (treating them as we would not want them to treat us), but worse we are rejecting what God desires to use as a means for our own personal growth as well as the growth of His kingdom, which is what we are here on this earth for to begin with!
In saying these things, I fear this post may end up hurting the relationships I have with some, particularly those who are anti-ECM, reformed, or both. If so, our friendship cannot be forged and tempered on that which we hate, but on that which we love. But where Christ is the sole treasure, such friendships can only deepen, and iron will truly be sharpening iron. I pray that all readers will understand my heart on this matter and interact with feedback where there is confusion or misunderstanding. For if you reject me because I didn't say something "right", or say it the way you would have said it, then the failure of 'Christianity' I have described above will only perpetuate itself through dogmatism instead of discussion, and through traditionalism rather than trust.
Posts
18 comments:
I'm a first time reader, Rob--followed a link from Cerulean Sanctum. Thank you so much for such a thoughtful discourse. I have had many questions about the Emerging Church and you have helped some puzzle pieces fit together.
God's blessing.
Becky, thanks for following the link! Dan has probably been my biggest source for referrals over here, and of course, I love him for that! Stay tuned for that future post I referred to.
I plan on staying tuned for Part 2, Rob, thanks.
I found the points you made explaining the condition of the evangelical church to be helpful. You said, "First, as already stated, the gospel message itself comes to be identified with reductionistic statements, many of which are misleading at best." I understand that this reductionism is something the EC tries to shed by refusing propositional statements altogether. From what you've said here, that makes more sense to me, but I do think it opens a believer to error, as did Kierkegaard's leap of faith.
Isn't the opposite of reduction, expansion? By that, I mean a return to the whole council of Scripture, not an esoteric plunge into the trancendent.
I appreciate the challenge to think these things through.
Rob,
Thank you for your continuing series of posts on the emergent church. I have read two of McLaren's books (one of them was his recent "A Generous Orthodoxy") and got frustrated and slightly depressed at the relativity and ambiguity (you may read that as "sellout").
Then I read Dan Kinball's "Emergent Church" and what a difference. Kimball is in no way dumping the gospel from what I could tell. What he is doing is changing the church service scenario--schedule, environment, and also the Bible meta-narrative into smaller chunks (although still topical sadly).
So as the people who are dialogueing with you have said, there are so many divergent views in this EC movement.
I do agree with you though that eventually, their avoidance of the meta-narrative and expostional teaching will entrap them. Then we shall see if and how they solve that problem.
Hi Rob,
The comments you make here leave me confused. It was a rather long post, so maybe I missed something. However I do have a few questions for you.
You tear into what you call catch phrases for the gospel. You go on to question the validity of the salvation of people who have through the preaching of God’s word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit have “Accepted Christ as their personal savior, “Made Jesus their Lord and Savior”, or “made a decision for Christ”.
You go onto question their very relationship with God and in essence banish them to hell:
“Several generations of 'Christians' and church members have come to understand a gospel which is not the authentic, biblical gospel at all.”
“The second problem with this approach is that while churches become filled with such persons - many, if not most of whom are probably not genuine believers.”
“But if one is not a true believer to begin with, because they have confused the gospel they heard and 'accepted' with the true one, then they cannot live by it nor treasure its Person.”
But no where on your post do I see you define what:
1) You think the “true” gospel message is?
2) How is this message in your view can be legitimately preached? (So as to not include any of these heretical catch phrases).
3) How can someone who is searching become a Christian?
{{{Candleman}}}
Rob - not sure if he means it that way - but the previous post may actually help in that it points the overall discussion of this issue to where I think it ultimately needs to go.
Phil on Pyromaniac is talking about the need for a new generation of reformers. It seems to me that what is going on now is really in many ways a logical conclusion to the effects of Finney and many others on the Church. A huge segment of the church (little "c"), seen for a long time as separate from the apostate church, has really been in large part just as separate from the Biblical remnant. Now the work of regneration is still done among some members of those churches, but of course that can be true in the larger body of churces that "evangelicals" would have agreed over the years were not orthodox.
So in fact it may be proper, however radical it seems, to eschew the term evangelical, to write it off as a co-opted, corrupted term - and to tear our clothes over a great apostasy in the church.
But this also means a circling of the wagons of sorts, of identifying a core set of essential doctrine, along with the heartfelt belief that doctrine really DOES matter - identifying those bodies that wish to take that stand and then moving on from there for the cause of Christ.
This is anecdotal I know, but I think the rate of deterioration has increased markedly, even in the past few years. The annoying, sometimes curious Seeker movement has evolved into a sinister, morphing, Emergent infection.
I should just add that while the ECM has identified some real problems, mainly in practice from the "evangelical" church - it would be something akin to two bands of enemies fighting one another. That the 2nd group recognizes the first is fundamentally flawed, doesn't override the 2nd group's flaws in essential areas.
Reformedsoccerguy, you said:
"But this also means a circling of the wagons of sorts, of identifying a core set of essential doctrine, along with the heartfelt belief that doctrine really DOES matter"
I think this is the kind of thing that led to the reductionism Rob speaks of. Not that we shouldn't know and understand what we believe, but I see some people, some reformed people included, sort of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, My mind's already made up; don't confuse me with facts.
Rather than identifying our core set of beliefs, I thing we are best served by engaging the whole of Scripture--but I think I said that in the earlier post.
Becky,
In response to reductionism's antonym, I believe it would be expansionism. But, expansionism doesn't necessarily have to include only the whole counsel of Scripture. And therein, I think, lies the problem. And there are two of them, if I may ramble for a moment.
First, as I see it, the ECM seems to opt for expansionism which opens Christianity wide to things other than the whole counsel of God. Culture is the biggest one. A fundamental argument for EC'ers by way of their hermeneutical system, seems to be that the culture the Bible was written in and addressing isn't the same as ours. Ergo, because ours is different, the Bible doesn't speak to it. So, much of the whole counsel of Scripture is summarily dismissed because the interpreter presupposes that its message is antiquated since our culture is different. The homosexuality issue is, in my book, the biggest reflection of this. According to a stream of EC thought on this issue, because 'monogomous homosexual relationships' didn't exist in the OT or NT world (but only licentious, unbridled lust), Paul and other writers didn't know about it. But since our culture today contains these types of homosexual relationships, the teachings of the Bible on homosexuality don't speak to it since they were unknown in that day and time. So expansionism, as you called it, has led to summarily dismissing biblical teaching on homosexuality. And the same follows suit with other issues too, like women in ministry.
Second, expansionism cannot help but lead to endless discussions. The wider the door is opened, the more will encroach on the doorway and enter in. And consequently the more we will have to deal with. The ECM seems to feel comfortable with the idea of discussing, conversing, and 'growing' together. But if the ideas that we 'discuss' are dangerous to Christianity, then isn't that discussion itself dangerous? But that's where we are fundamentally opposed to each other, it seems. For the ECM wouldn't view Christianity with modernistic tendencies such as a set pattern of orthodox doctrine and beliefs. While in my post I knock reductionism, I believe I made the case for the fact that there is in fact a certain belief system that is inherent to Christianity itself - i. e., what we believe about Christ, God, sin, etc. is different from the rest of the religions of the world making us different. So if expansionism means allowing error to creep in so we can discuss it, in hopes that we might be able to all 'grow' from it, that won't happen. We won't 'grow,' but we will denigrate.
There's my three-sense.
Candleman,
Thanks for posting a response. I know the post was long, but I believe that if you read it again, you won't find any hint of me "banishing them to hell." In fact, just the opposite is true. Their still alive and breathing and so there is still time to rescue them. They need rescuing because the Christianity they have come to accept, and pastors have come to preach as normal, is based solely on the intellect, and that as disassociated or unattached from the rest of our lives. Faith without works is dead. That's what James said and that's all I'm saying. It has to be about more than saying these things or affirming these things.
Christianity is never described in the Bible in the terms we use today, though I realize we must always use other 'extrabiblical' language to formulate what we believe about what is in the Bible. But, we must also use the terms the Bible uses. And the Bible describes Christianity in terms of a kingdom (thus, how do we enter into it?), as a cross (which we must take up and follow Jesus with), as good works (which we were predestined to perform - Eph. 2:10), as loving one another (as described in 1 John), etc. These 'catch phrases' do not 'catch' what the Scriptures teach about salvation, but rather they muddle everything up.
Therefore, if one's understanding of Christianity rests on these catch phrases, which do not reflect a biblical understanding of the gospel, then how can they be truly saved? There is one 'catch' in all this: God sovereignly and amazingly works through and amid all our errors in preaching and believing, and I praise Him for that. Somehow, God works through much of the worthlessness that is out there to affect true conversion, and I praise God for that too!
I hope this response answers your three questions. I tried to tie it all up together. Forgive me for offending you, brother. That is never my intent. Those who read me regularly and know me well, know that my heart is never to bash or 'tear into' others, but rather to gently yet firmly get us all to think. Thanks again.
Rob! Great to hear from you bro!
In response, I get your drift on the second post especially. But I'd also flip your statement around and say this: "that the 2nd group recognizes the first is fundamentally flawed, doesn't override what the 2nd group gets right in essential areas." That was the spirit of my post, and I may not have expressed that sufficiently. I think the ECM is fundamentally flawed in essential areas. But their analyses of evangelicalism is shared by me and many others (and you probably agree also).
My post was in a spirit toward Phil. 4:8, meditating on those things which were true. I am finding that for discussing theology with EC'ers, this is more and more becoming that 'point of contact' I learned so much about from Van Til and Bahnsen. When I find what is true and biblical and praiseworthy in an EC'er I find that our discussion goes so much farther in terms of God using each to shape the other.
Thanks again for reading my stuff bro! I'm humbled. You're a busy professional writer and editor! So how am I doing, by the way? Any improvements I could make?
Rob, thanks for taking the time to dialogue on this. You said, "But, expansionism doesn't necessarily have to include only the whole counsel of Scripture." I guess, I am advocating that it should. God gave us the whole council of Scripture--that's His revealed truth. To reduce His Word to a set of propositions does open us up to error, as you pointed out. To expand out of the bounds of Scripture does open us up to error, as you pointed out.
The only logical answer, it seems to me, is to have free rein within the bounds of Scripture. Upon reading my last post, I realized I sounded much harsher than I intended. I meant no disrespect to anyone.
But as I read Scripture, I see things that are hard to reconcile with each other. Some people, I believe, have reduced God's word to a set of propositions--good as touchstones for our understanding, but not the exclusive and total summation of truth--and when something in Scripture doesn't square with one or more of those statements, too often what gives is the part of God's counsel that doesn't square rather than the limited statement.
As to going to the culture or to anything else extrabiblical as revelation, No! Never!
OK, now I have to qualify that last statement. Yes, I do believe in general revelation. God does show Himself in what He has created.
But as soon as we start filtering God's special revelation--through our culture or through the lens of higher criticism or even the reductionist statements of evangelicalism, we have a problem
Becky,
Your observations are correct. That's why I stated what I did, and here it is again with the sentences that follow the one you quoted: "But, expansionism doesn't necessarily have to include only the whole counsel of Scripture. And therein, I think, lies the problem."
The fact that expansionism doesn't only include Scripture is what's the problem, for me.
In the upcoming post I've referred to (which I may get out this weekend), I show just how the expansionism occurs. In a recent interview with PBS, McLaren says the Scriptures provide only a 'trajectory' for the church today. That is, McLaren believes that since the Bible is mainly a story about God's redemptive activities in the world, the stories it ends with are not really the end, but merely present a sort of trajectory of where the church was going then. The hope then is that the church today lies somewhere within that trajectory. So he speaks of it almost like meteorologists do of the "cone of probability" when trying to figure the trajectory and impact of a hurricane.
Problem is, this is the very reason why expansionism, for the ECM, doesn't have to only include Scripture, the whole counsel of God. When our presuppositions about it are changed to what they suggest, the whole counsel of God in Scripture is not really whole...in fact, it's not really finished at all...it's still being written by us today.
That is the problem and to be honest it scares me very, very much.
Rob,
Got it. I hadn't understood that you were referring to the EC when you said, "But, expansionism doesn't necessarily have to include only the whole counsel of Scripture." As far as I'm concerned "expansionism" MUST NOT go beyond the whole counsel of Scripture (and again qualified, because I do believe in general revelation).
I took your "therein lies the problem" statement to mean, we have yet to uncover a way out of the dilemma of reductionism by evangelicals on one hand and the esoteric pursuit of the transcendent by the emergent church.
If I understand what you are advocating, it would be, in a nutshell, to live as we say we believe.
I think you can build a good case for that, but only because Scripture advocates the same thing. I think we get in trouble, no matter which way we turn--whether we condense Scripture or whether we search beyond its boundries.
Becky
Becky - It may be too late now for you to see this, but I wanted to clarify something. By circling the wagons I absolutely do not mean plugging our ears. I mean that the Church really needs to appraise. There has been SO much blurring of the lines, it is essential to find out what is essential.
I don't mean a list of doctrinal positions so much as a positive stance for the whole of Scripture (I'm more of a Biblical Theology guy than a Systematic guy anyway).
I just think that in efforts to be diplomatic, a lot of folks are using old paradigms to try and define the biblical Church, and I think the situation in the west at least, has deteriorated beyond that. That's why I'm not afraid to say that evangelicalism is dead.
But I do appreciate Rob's efforts to engage and sort out worthwhile things from McLaren and others. As I said before, they definitely can be helpful, particularly in their willingness to call out the difficulties with American ecclesiastical/evangelical traditionalism, which has substituted so many human inventions for the Biblical Church motif.
It's their willingness to call this out that I think brings them the majority of their followers, but the alternative offered, upon closer examination, is frightening from a theological and overall perspective.
Rob (soccerguy), thanks for the clarification. you did my heart good by saying "a positive stance for the whole of Scripture..."
I'm interested in a couple other things. You said "I think the situation in the west at least ..." Are you referring to western civilization or western United States?
And "I'm not afraid to say that evangelicalism is dead." Have you written your views on this somewhere else? I'd be interested in your definition of evangelicalism. (To me that's like saying the Church is dead--OK, I exaggerate, but if it is dead, then what are we replacing it with?)
Again, I appreciate the dialogue.
Becky
Hi, you have a great blog here! If you are interested, go see my business business email marketing related site. It isnt anything special but you may still find something of interest.
Post a Comment