9Marks | Print | Back |
An Emerging Church Primer Some of you may be called to be experts on the emerging church. We need experts. But I'm not that expert. And perhaps it's good for you that I'm not. In conservative evangelical circles, we can be tempted to listen to experts so that we can hear the person's conclusions: "Just tell me what to thinkdon't bother me with how you got there." We want the Cliff Notes on the emerging church. We want to read the cast of characters"this guy's a wolf, that guy's a sheep," and so on. I'm not going to do that. One of my goals is to help you understand the "emerging church." But my deeper goal would be for us to become the sort of people who know how to think about things like the emerging church. After all, the "emerging church" is not here to stay. It's a movement, and this is its season. It might be replaced in a year or so; it might stretch out for decades. Yet one thing's for sure: Emerging Church Version 2006 is going to look different next year. And the next. As Christians, we want to train ourselves to have the mind of Christ, so that we can respond like well-trained tennis players to whatever ball flies in our directionno matter the angle, the spin, or the speed. DEFINING THE EMERGING CHURCH What Is the Emerging Church? What exactly is the "emerging church"? Here is one common way that many people think about the movement:
The emphasis here falls entirely on matters of style and demographics.
My wife recently told someone that I would be giving a talk on the emerging church. The person responded, "Is that where they light candles, sit on couches, and try to do church?" If you are a critic of the emerging church, you will probably think this definition is accurate. If you are a cheerleader, you will undoubtedly think it's unfair. How do we find an answer? I suggest that we listen not only to the critics of the emergents, but to the emergents themselves. If possible, we should also listen to (ostensibly) disinterested third-party observers who offer a sociological perspective. In what follows, I hope to draw from all three. Distinction Between "Emergent" and "Emerging" First, we should distinguish between "Emergent" and "Emerging." Emergent is an organization (www.emergentvillage.com/) or an official network of likeminded leaders and churches involved in one particular stream of the emerging "conversation." Tony Jones now serves as the first national coordinator in the United States. Emerging, on the other hand, is the term most often used to describe the much broader movement (or "conversation") of those seeking to incarnate and contextualize the gospel for postmoderns. All that is emergent is emerging, but not all that is emerging is necessarily emergent. In other words, some pastors, churches, and writers want to retain the emerging labelor who bear emerging characteristicswithout identifying themselves with or even supporting the Emergent organization. The emerging church movement is larger than North American. There are thousands of emerging Christians in Western Europe and the South Pacific and, to a lesser extent, in Asia, Africa, and South America. My remarks pertain mainly to the American version. But keep in mind that this is part of a larger worldwide conversation with its own dynamic and nuances.
The Wikipedia Definition Wikipediathe free, online, open-source encyclopediais a helpful place to begin for defining the emerging movement as a whole:
Note that a definition like this contains an element of protest. There is a flip-side to all of these attributes. If the emerging movement values these four attributes, it's because they regard the traditional church as
The "Order and Rule" of the Emergent Village The Emergent Village website is another source that sets forth the self-understanding of the movement. The four following values and practices are listed as their "order and rule": 1. "Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus," which means
2. "Commitment to the Church in all its Forms," which means
3. "Commitment to God's World," which means
4. "Commitment to One Another," which means
Again, notice the implicit protest in each of these values. If the emergents are committed to the way of Jesus, the church in all its forms, the world, and one another, it's because traditional Christians are committed to
The Gibbs-Bolger Definition Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger of Fuller Seminary, after spending five years interviewing participants in the "emergent conversation," wrote the book Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker). Though the book is not a defense of the movement but aims to present an objective analysis, it has been well received and commended by prominent members of the emergent community. Gibbs and Bolger begin with the premise that emerging churches are those faith communities "engaged in particular processes." These faith communities "take culture, specifically postmodern culture, very seriously," and they tend to share up to nine common practicesthree core practices and six derivative practices. At the core, emerging churches are those (1) who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live (2) and who transform the secular realm (3) as they live highly communal lives. Derivatively, emerging churches (4) welcome those who are outside, (5) share generously, (6) participate, (7) create, (8) lead without control, (9) and function together in spiritual activities. All this can be boiled down to one sentence: "Emerging Churches are communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures." Or, to say the same thing another way, "Emerging Churches are missional communities arising from within postmodern culture, consisting of followers of Jesus seeking to be faithful in their place and time."[3] Three Kinds of Emerging Folks By now it should also be evident that all emerging church folks are not the same. Ed Stetzer, a missiologist with the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board, divides them into three categories: (1) the relevants, (2) the reconstructionists, and (3) the revisionists.[4] My purpose in citing his taxonomy is not to suggest that these are the best terms or that this is exhaustive, but rather to illustrate that the "conversation" and "movement" are by no means monolithic. The relevants, say Stetzer, take "the same Gospel in the historic form of church but seeking to make it understandable to emerging culture." They seek to retain "the old, old story," but they might retell it in new language and with a different approach to worship, preaching, or church structure. In other words, this group wants to distinguish between what's essential to the Christian faith and what's not. The reconstructionists take "the same Gospel but questioning and reconstructing much of the form of church." For example, they promote house churches. The revisionists question and revise not just the church, but what most evangelicals would understand the Gospel to mean. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones would fall into this last category. As we turn to evaluating the emerging church movement, it is important to remember the diversity within this movement. There is clearly a difference between what the "relevants" are doing and what the "revisionists" are doing. Speaking in generalities without acknowledging some of these nuances and distinctions will paint an inaccurate picture and will hamper our ability to speak clearly and convincingly on these issues. EVALUATING THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT Like I mentioned earlier, when most people think of the emerging church, they think of couches, candles, clothing, and music. These things grab our attention. But the Bible does not have a lot to say about drums versus organs, slacks versus jeans, or candles verses chandeliers. Yet the Bible does have a lot to say about ours heart and our doctrine. So that's what we should consider. Four Areas of Concern My major concerns about what I see in Emergent[5] can be boiled down to four issues: (1) the authority of God's Word; (2) the cross of Christ, (3) the concepts of truth and knowledge, and (4) sexual ethics. In what follows I am only able to scratch the surface and to provide a brief sketch of these issues. 1. The Bible One of the things I appreciate about the Emerging Church Movement generally is that they stress the narrative aspects of Scripture. As they rightly insist, Scripture is not just a big fact-book. It's not just a series of propositions and commandments. It's not even a systematic theology textbook. Scripture is a story of God's plan to save us. Postmoderns are much more attracted to instruction driven by story-telling than the traditional "three points and a poem." But as you have probably heard said, "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth."[6] While Scripture is more than a set of propositions, it is not less. It's both/and, not either/or. Also, we must ask questions about the way some within the EM view the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. By focusing on the narrative aspects of Scripture, they are able to discuss "the big picture"broad trajectories, themes, and metaphorswithout digging into the details. But God has given us the details of Scripture for a reason. Not a word is wasted in our Bibles. As Francis Schaeffer once said, "God has spoken, and he is not silent." Remember how the serpent led Eve into disobedience: "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" (Gen. 3:1). Satan does not begin by lying, per se, but with a question. He plants a seed of doubt: "Hey, I'm just asking questions. Raising the issues. Exploring the terrain. I'm not saying God didn't say this. I'm just wondering if we all really understood what he said." We do not need a generous orthodoxy, as some have claimed. (As Al Mohler has perceptively observed, "generous orthodoxy" is neither generous nor orthodox![7]) We want a humble orthodoxy. And undermining the authority of God's Wordwhich I think you will observe in my next three areas of concernis not the way of humble orthodoxy. It is neither humble nor orthodox to undermine the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. There is nothing hip or cool or relevant about asking a new generation, "Did God actually say ?" The doctrine of God's authoritative Word should be absolutely humbling. We are weak. We are biased. We are sinful. We idolize ourselves. And God has a powerful Word that stands over and above us. We must submit. Mark Dever has said it well:
2. The Cross If you read the EM writers, you will often hear them contend that the atonement is bigger than substitutionary atonementthe biblical idea that Christ acted as our substitute and graciously absorbed the wrath of God that we deserved. And the EM folks are right; there is more to the atonement than substitution. The Bible also refers to the cross in terms of his example for us (e.g. 1 Peter 2:21ff), or in terms of his defeat of his enemies (e.g. Col. 2:13-15). Yes, more happened on the cross than Christ bearing our sins and the wrath of his Father. But less was not happening either! Once again, "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth." It is a half-truth to say that "many aspects of the atonement need to be taken into account." It is the whole truth to say that many aspects need to be taken in to account, and substitutionary atonement is at the heart of Christ's work and the gospel itself. Tom Schreiner, in a recent address on Penal Substitution as the Heart of the Gospel, expresses the biblical view on this:
If we lose Christ's work of substitution and propitiation, we lose the gospel and are left with a theory of the atonement that is a complete untruth. In the United States, the EM is often associated with the name Brian McLaren. In the United Kingdom, Steve Chalke (pronounced "chalk") is an increasingly popular figure. A few years ago Chalke said the following about substitutionary atonement in his popular book The Lost Message of Jesus:
Notice what Chalke is saying: The doctrine of propitiationthat Christ removed the wrath of God by absorbing it himselfis labeled "child abuse." Not only does Chalke think that propitiation is untrue, he thinks it is immoral and reprehensible. Brian McLaren suggests that Chalke's book "could help save Jesus from Christianity," which is not surprising since McLaren places the "cosmic child abuse" argument on the lips of one of his characters in one of his books.[10] And never does McLaren refute this idea. It seems as if this is McLaren's passive way of saying something without saying something. Chalke and McLaren's approach to the atonement has led Don Carson to write the following sobering words:
Carson's concern, if accurate, takes us way beyond any debates we might have over music, candles, communal living, and culture. Such matters cut to the very heart of our faith. Is the wrath of God real? Does sinful humanity deserve God's just condemnation? Did Christ go to the cross to absorb and remove the wrath of the Father? Was he our substituteour sacrificial lamb? Nothing should be more central to our lives than the gospel. 3. Truth and Knowledge Sometimes the EM is charged with not believing in "absolute truth." I'm not sure that's a fair charge. Many within emerging churches say that they believe truth exists, and that it is absolute. But many of them also say that such truth belongs to God, not us. While truth itself might be unchanging, our knowledge of the truth can never be certain. We may have confidence that something is true, but we can never have certainty. So the question of truth is really a question about our knowledge of truth, our knowledge of right and wrong, and so forth. I do appreciate the fact that emerging writers stress human fallenness on this particular point. During the Enlightenment, many people believed the process of obtaining knowledge was a fairly mechanical process, as if humans were computers. Plug in the correct information, and the correct analysis will pop out. EM advocates rightly point out that the process of gaining knowledge is much more complex, and that sinful human biases and perspectives color how we view the world. But remember: "a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth." Here, exhaustive knowledge is being confused with certain knowledge. I can have the latter without having the former. For example, I can know with certainty that God exists, and yet not have exhaustive knowledge about him. This distinction can be made in most areas of our lives, whether we are talking about my knowledge of my spouse, a country to which I have never traveled, football, or even my own personality. We can have confidence in our knowledge about something even if we don't know everything there is to know about that thing. But the EM perspective, like the worldview of postmodernism generally, uses the lack of comprehensive knowledge to undermine the ability to have confidence or certainty. Scripture clearly teaches that humans are fallible, mixed in their motives, and partial in their knowledge. At the same time, Scripture unashamedly describes humans as capable of knowing the truth. It even portrays doubt as a negative characteristic at times.[12] Humility is a virtue, but doubt is not. 4. Sexual Ethics I wonder if you have noticed this pattern: in the places where Western culture is critical of traditional evangelical Christianity, sooftenare the emergents. Take, for example, the issue of homosexuality. Here's what Brian McLaren recently said on this topic:
There is a time for charity and a time for deference. But there is also a time for straight-speak. What McLaren says here is foolish. I am not simply calling him names. I am drawing on the language of folly in Proverbs and elsewhere to offer you my measured biblical assessment. The Bible says many things, and some topics are clearer than other topics. Its teaching on homosexuality, however, is clear. It may not be popular, but it is not ambiguous. The Bible also commends the idea of seeking truth and understanding (e.g. Prov. 2:1-6). But I believe that the emerging church often makes seeking an end in itself, and Scripture condemns that line of thinking. So Paul condemns those who are "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7). G.K. Chesteron offers us a biblical alternative to McLaren's methodology: "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."[14] Other Concerns I have touched on just four issues: the authority of God's Word, the cross of Christ, the truth and knowledge, and sexual ethics. But sadly, we could go right on down the line and talk about other issues like whether women be elders/pastors, whether sinners must believe in Jesus to be saved, or whether eternal torment awaits those who do not know God in Christ. In fact, I cannot think of a single major doctrine that is not being "reinvisioned" or "reimagined" for today. Even someone like Professor Scot McKnight, who has been tireless in his efforts to explain and encourage the EM, recently had to conclude his review of a book by Spencer Burke (of the Emergent The Ooze website) by sadly concluding that he is a heretic, a universalist, a panentheist, denies the Trinity, and gives no evidence in his recent book of believing in the gospel as the New Testament defines "gospel."[15] Do these concerns apply to every church that is considered an emerging church? Absolutely not. But they do apply to a number of the most prominent leaders and popular churches. I believe that much of the criticism against emerging churches would be quelled if those from within the movement arose and spoke clearly about these crucial issues, and criticized the abandoning of such central Scriptural matters. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES? A Call for Humble Orthodoxy Humility has to do with rightly viewing the greatness of God such that you see yourself in the proper light. In other words, humility does not mean hating yourself and believing that everything you do is wrong. And it doesn't mean remaining continually uncertain. Rather, humility means being confident inand looking toGod and his grandeur and greatness. It means submitting yourself to his word and his ways. Orthodoxy refers to having right beliefs, which involves affirming the historic truths of the Christian faithbelieving what the church has always believed and confessed. It's not about trying to come up with a new kind of Christianity for your present community. It's about standing in the historic stream with the communion of saints and confessing what the church has always confessed. As indicated earlier in this article, we must commit to a stance of humble orthodoxy, understanding that true humility should lead us deeper into orthodoxy, that orthodoxy should have a humbling effect on our souls, and that we must speak the truth (orthodoxy) in love (humbly). A Call for Contextualized Confessionalism Appropriate contextualization means "adapting my communication of the gospel without changing its essential character."[16] In short, we must retain the essentials and adapt the non-essentials. In the New Testament, it is a non-negotiable that Christians love one another and express their affection. One way that it commands this is for Christians to greet each other with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). Now when most guys in the United States get together, there may be handshakes or hugs or high-fivesbut no smooches. Are they disobeying Scripture? I don't think so, because they are obeying the core of the command but changing its cultural expression. Let me give some other examples. Let's imagine that you go over to a pastor's house for lunch after church. The lunch is ready, and everyone pulls up their chair to the table. Everyone grows quiet and you look over to the pastor to ask the Lord's blessing on the meal. But Pastor Joe (we'll call him) looks at you and everyone else and just says, "Wellwhat are you all waiting for? Let's dig in." No prayer. What would you think? You might wonder if your pastor is doing okay spiritually? You might wonder why he was so dishonoring to God. Now I think praying before meals is a great idea. It's something I always try to do (I'm not on a crusade to change the practice!). But we should recognize that the Bible does not command us to pray before each meal. We're commanded to thank God for providing us our daily bread. We're commanded to pray at all times, giving thanks. But we're never told, "Pray before breakfast, pray before lunch, and prayer before dinner." Yet we Christians tend to confuse our practices within Christian sub-culture as commands from our Creator. There are lots of things like this: praying with your eyes closed, having a quiet time first thing in the morning, singing only hymns, having pews in your church, a pastor wearing a coat and tie, and so on. Paul discussed the relationship between unchanging truth and changing culture in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
Tom Ascol recently offered a good summary of Paul's intentions here: "I would make a sharp distinction between compromising what God has revealed in His Word and accommodating others where we can for the sake of gaining a hearing for the Gospel." We must never compromisebut we must accommodate. What are those things in our lives, in our ministries, in our churches that have more to do with cultural Christianity than they do with eternal, unchanging truth? Our great danger in the Western church comes when we refuse to accommodate the non-essentials in the name of not compromising. Contextualization has become a buzz word. The flip side of the coin is that we must not only be contextual, but also confessional. By confessional I mean that we should affirm and confess the historic teachings recovered during the Reformation. Walter Henegar recently wrote: "Emergent writers may correctly diagnose postmodern sensibilities, but their prescriptions tend to conform rather than transform." For transforming prescriptions, we often have to turn outside of our own narrow window of time. Part of being a confessional Christian is reading church historyand reading writers from church history. We all know the statement: "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." We would be naïve to think that all of the issues being raised are "new" and that variants on them have not been dealt with in the past. One of the things I appreciate about Tim Keller's approach to these issues is his insistence that Reformational Christianity already has within it the resources needed to minister to post-everythings.[17]
A Call to Speak the Truth in Love We need to remember that we are bound by the Word of God to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Some of us are so wired to "speak the truth" that we fail to do it in love. (And of course, the converse is true as well. There are those who are so concerned about speaking in love that they never get around to speaking truth.) I know that, for myself, I am often far too impressed with my own cleverness and far too desirous of "scoring points." Yet the biblical imperatives call us to a higher ground: truth and love. It's not an either/or, but a both/and. Perhaps the most helpful phrase is one coined by John Piper: "brokenhearted boldness." We must seek to soak our critiques with meekness and humility. Listen to the wise counsel of John Newtonthe vile slave trader turned redeemed author of the hymn "Amazing Grace":
CONCLUSION I want to close with a couple of quotes from pastors wiser than myself. First, Walter Henegar says,
I close with another quote from Tim Keller, who calls both the emerging church and the evangelical church to a better way:
Justin Taylor is the managing editor of Crossway's forthcoming ESV Study Bible. He is also the editor of Overcoming Sin and Temptation, an unabridged but more accessible version of John Owen's classics on sin and temptation, due out this October from Crossway. September 2006 (c)9Marks Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: (c)9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030. [1] Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005). Gibbs and Bolger go on to explain why this definition is inaccurate. [3] Bolger and Gibbs, Emerging Churches, 28. [4] Ed Stetzer, "Understanding the Emerging Church." [5] Hereafter I'll just abbreviate it for convenience as EM (emerging movement). Unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the more liberal wing of the conversation. [6] J. I. Packer, Introduction to Owen's Death of Death [7] R. Albert Mohler, Jr. "A Generous OrthodoxyIs It Orthodox?" [8] Mark Dever, "Three Marks of a Faithful Pastor," delivered at Together for the Gospel, Louisville, KY (April 26, 2006). [9] Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182-183. [10] Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 102. As Carson points out, "the objections are never answered and are elsewhere voiced by McLaren himself, who makes no attempt to show how those who support substitutionary atonement would answer such objections or to examine the extent to which substitutionary atonement is taught in Scripture." [11] Carson, Becoming Conversant with Emerging Churches,186-187. [12] Cf. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, a book very influential in my own thinking about biblical epistemology. On the biblical case for "Knowing Some Truths, Even with 'Certainty'" see a sampling of the Scriptural witness pulled together by Carson: Becoming Conversant with Emerging Churches, 193-99. [13] Brian McLaren, "Leader's Insight: No Cowardly Flip-Flop" [14] G. K. Chesterton, The Autobiography, vol. 16 of The Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 212. [15] Scot McKnight, Heretic's Guide to Eternity 4. [16] Keller, Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century, Part 3. His thoughts here on contextualization are well worth reading and heeding. [17] Tim Keller, Post-Everythings. [18] Abraham Kuyper, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 488. [19] John Newton, "On Controversy" [Letter XIX], vol. 1 of The Works of the Rev. John Newton (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 269. [20] Tim Keller, Post-Everythings. |
|