Emerging/Emergent in Des Moines

Are you a Christian that lives in the Des Moines (Iowa) area? Do you know anything about the Emerging/Emergent Church movement? Well, maybe you should.

I have had some experience with a few different churches on the west side of town and here's some of what I have learned. There are two very large churches that have a pretty big influence in DSM that I'm thinking of, particularly Lutheran Church of Hope (ELCA) and Valley Evangelical-Free (EFCA).

Valley Church has not made a public statment about their stance or approach to the issue; however, they have had Tony Jones head of Emergent-US come as a guest speaker to their district youth leaders and their high school through college age kids (Jake Bouma talked about it coming up here and he took notes on this lecture here from this post. Also, Brandon Barker, the leader of student ministries at VEFC, posted about this here and here.). Valley Church has an attendance of probably approximately 1,500 every week (e.g. in the 4/29/07 Valleygram it says there was 1,747 in attendance.) All of this being said their most recent church plant Waukee Community Church has identified itself with the views of Mark Driscoll's perspective on the Emergent Church. Kind of confusing I know.

Lutheran Church of Hope has made statements regarding the Emerging church but not the Emergent church...however, in their commenting on the Emerging church they did say they align with the views of Brian McLaren. Their statement is no longer published online. They emailed me a copy of it this week though. If you're interested just let me know. I'd be happy to email it to you. The website where it originally was listed is here where January 21, 2005 is listed. Here are a few quotes from their article:

"Lutheran Church of Hope is an early example of the emerging church."

"Let me try and connect the vision of Hope with what McLaren and other emerging church leaders are articulating."

"Lutheran Church of Hope is revisiting some ideas of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism...deeper sacramentality..."

"I think Lutheran Church of Hope is a concrete example of much of what the emerging church movement is advocating."

Why does any of this matter?? Well, last week I called Lutheran Church of Hope and they said their attendance on 5/29/2007 was over 5,000. Wow! These churches are being influenced by the Emerging/Emergent Church movement...in turn they are influencing tons of people in our community. That's a pretty big deal.

Even the church just down the street from me in Waukee Westview Church is doing a preaching series through N. T. Wright's book Simply Christian.

Now, none of this is necessarily bad, I'm just saying that if you know nothing about the Emerging/Emergent Church movement you should probably do some research...because there's a possibility that it is having an influence on the leaders of your local church and you.

"My Introduction to the Emergent/Emerging Church"

I first heard about the Emergent Church [EC] in a conversation with a friend about 2 years ago. He asked me if I had ever heard of the movement, and I hadn’t.

I was curious about EC so after some “Googling” I ended up at Emergent Village . I listened to all the audio available from Tom Wright [I think], and a conference at Columbia college. The conference was hosted by Brian McLaren and Tony Jones with some guest speakers Walter Bruggeman and a few Reformed guys.

My honest reflection from the talks were that Bruggeman was an unhappy man who started with some good views on American consumerism’s effects on the church, but became a little misdirected in his focus and solutions. He went in a complete opposite direction from David Wells’ focus and solutions, based off of some similar sociological analysis [which concerns American consumerism’s effects on the church as well]. Bruggeman severely stumbled me from that talk for a long time [if you're curious about how ask me sometime:)]. Also, Jones and McLaren’s approach to the Reformed men, they invited to be panel speakers, was disrespectful. They treated them as presuppositionalists [In reality aren’t we all?]. Anyhow, the entire thing did not leave a good taste in my mouth.

I read a lot of the documents that they listed as sources as well [I don't own any books...I've just tried to read free stuff online]. The only one I found helpful was McLaren’s stuff on a good perspective in worship music [albeit not as helpful as some stuff that John Frame has written or Ligon Duncan III with the "distributive principle"].

At about this same time I was listening to talks regarding the New Perspective on Paul [NPP] by Sinclair Ferguson [my professor for Systematic Theology II], and had read articles by J. Ligon Duncan III [my professor For Systematic Theolgoy III] [Sidenote: I’m getting a copy of a talk that Derek Thomas gave at Dordt College last weekend regarding Luther and Calvin on the NPP]. NPP is propogated by Tom Wright and others.

So at the outset I wasn’t a fan of Bruggeman, or Tom Wright [I guess Wright wrote one of the best books on “justification” published by Banner of Truth and then after that he denied that he believes any of it]. [Here's an article if you're curious about Wright's views.] And a lot of stuff that EC leans toward theologically is by those guys [there are other theologians they look up to…but at the time this is who I was able to read that EC recommended].

Shortly after all of this I emailed Brian McLaren [his email at one time was listed on the site] to see if they had a mission statement because the beliefs section on Emergent Village [now values and practices were really difficult for me to understand. They were kind of vague doctrinally to me, and I really couldn’t get a clear idea of what they were talking about in the use of some of terms and phrases they were using. I never heard back [sidenote: almost a year later (5/4/06) Emergent posted this article on why they don’t have a doctrinal statement].

When I was in college I went through a period of time that I was against any form of the institution of the church. With my own eyes I wasn’t seeing the local church live the way I saw it living in the New Testament. God has softened my heart toward institutionalized Christianity [pretty much all existing local churches cell, home, etc. are institutions...just some smaller and some larger] and He is shaping my vision of what the local church should look like more and more.

Unfortunately for EC I believe that social action is only effective if it is grounded in good dogma and doctrine [you can read a lot more of what I think of some of this in a series of posts I did. I’ll link them below]. Therefore, it is fruit that bears from a tree rooted in good soil. Even a tree in poor soil bears fruit for a time, but it certainly doesn’t live as long [I guess the four soils would be a good example of this, only it is in regards to hearing the Word, not works]. I can understand peoples’ frustrations with the church, but a fuzzy view in some arenas and an abandonment of orthodox theological views in others is not the correct way to go in my opinion.

It’s interesting to me that some of the folks in EC are making decisions and such in a similar way that the mainline denominations made when “modernism” came on the scene. This split the church into fundamentalism and liberalism [generally speaking]. Then a third head popped up “evangelicalism” which had [very generally speaking] theology of the fundamentalists but was trying to engage culture (see Life of Carl F. H. Henry interview) [actually this head had a root in many years prior]. Read Evangelicalism Divided and Christianity and Liberalism you’ll see where I’m coming from with some of these comments [I’m sure there are plenty of other books]. Anyhow, there was a watering down of “evangelicalism” from the late 1950’s to 2000 in the ecumenical movement and this is what led to the disillusionment that we are faced with today [in my opinion]. Carson talks about this a little in the Being Conversant with the Emerging Church book. He, as Scot McKnight points out in his recent lecture at Westminster Theological Seminary, was not accurate on everything, but I think on the idea that Carson discusses about this movement having roots in the modern movement is spot on [harsh words allude to EC in a footnote used Carson’s book Conversant from his book The Gagging of God when he says, “…postmodernism [is the] bastard child of modernism: the genetic descent can scarcely be denied…” pp. 26 footnote 71]. I think much of postmodern epistemology is always with the best intentions... I just don't want to see EC lose the gospel like many of the churches did in what went down in the "liberalism" of the late 1800's to 1900's. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think conservative theology can be coupled with social justice. Maybe that's one of the streams of the "Emerging Churches" that Mark Driscoll talks about.

Anyhow, I'm still following this movement, and I am humbled...seeing the great depth of my sin as I have erroneously heaped judgment at times on brothers and sisters in Christ that are part of this movement [I'm just concerned. I guess it's another good intent that may have bad fruit]. I'm trying to learn how to be more like Christ too. I'm praying for you brothers...and I hope that God will continue to cling us to His inerrant Word, and to a clearer vision of His work on the cross, and His continued work through us...for the clear communication of the gospel to the lost in order that God may save as many has He desires. I'm sorry for any unloving judgment I have pointed in your direction, if you consider yourself a cohort of EC. It may be a sign of my lack of maturity...but I think these are dangerous waters and we must move forward extremely carefully.

I welcome any corrections or rebukes regarding the subjects that I might have misrepresented. To the best of my abilities this is how I have understood everything so far. Please let me know of any rebukes or corrections!

Thanks for listening [reading :)].

In Christ
Noah

[Below is the series of posts I did on the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement 5/8/06 to 5/18/06]

What is the Emerging Church Movement?

Emergent/Emerging Church
Part 1
Part 2
Part 2.1
Part 2.2
Part 2.3
Part 3
Part 3.1
Part 3.2
Part 3.3
Part 3.4
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Concerns Regarding The Emerging Church Movement.

Part 1
Part 1.1
Part 1.2
Part 1.3
Part 1.4
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 4.1
Part 4.2
I ended this series with this post Emergent/Emerging Church in order focus on Christ instead of concerns/criticisms of EC.

Random Question?

I’m just curious…but how and where did y’all first hear about the Emergent Church?

In Christ
Noah

Atonement and the Emergent Church

23 pages later, I'm done w/ my paper! I feel like a new man!

Here's a long snippet from the end...some views of the Emergent Church on the atonement...

Current Views of Atonement – Emergent Church Movement

Brian McLaren, who is a representative of the Emergent church, recently answered some questions directly related to atonement,

“Q: You wrote, ‘Which reminds us that none of us has a complete grasp of the gospel… It’s very dangerous to assume you’ve perfectly contained the gospel in your little formula.’ I think with all the other change going on, one thing we’ve got to hold firm on is the gospel.
A: What do you mean when you say ‘the gospel?’
Q: You know, justification by grace through faith in the finished atoning work of Christ on the cross.
A: Are you sure that’s the gospel?
Q: Of course. Aren’t you?
A: I’m sure that’s a facet of the gospel, and it’s the facet that modern evangelical protestants have assumed is the whole gospel, the heart of the gospel. But what’s the point of that gospel? (McLaren)”

The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ displayed His glory and set mankind free from the bondage to sin in order to be reconciled into a relationship with Him by faith. He justified us before the law. He propitiated God’s wrath. The atonement is simply what the gospel is, and the point is that God worked atonement on the cross.

Brian Mclaren along with Walter Brueggemann recently endorsed a book called Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind. In his recommendation McLaren said, “It used to be that Christian institutions and systems of dogma sustained the spiritual life of Christians. Increasingly spirituality itself is what sustains everything else Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. (Jones, back cover)” In this book Alan Jones said, “Implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine (Jones, 168)” Jones further said, “what does the image of the cross mean to me? It is a sign of the necessary crucifixion of ideologies in the face of concrete human experience – the crucifixion of power plays, the crucifixion of a god we think we can conceptually control. It also is a sign of humanity’s need to find someone to blame for its ills. When we suffer or are threatened, we look for scapegoats. Scholar Rene Girard suggests that scapegoating is the idée fixe at the heart of our culture. It is, for him, the mechanism on which society, culture, and religion are based. The murder of the innocent and our ability to make acts of scapegoating violence sacred seem to be built into us. The cross speaks directly to this dark issue of scapegoating. (Jones, 168)” He called the doctrine of atonement a “vile doctrine” and ruled it out as a “crucifixion of ideals.” McLaren and Jones need to work with how God developed the doctrine of atonement biblically and in church history and they would benefit from Aquinas. Their view is one step away from Anselm in the direction of universalism [similar to Abelard’s], and Aquinas is one step away from Anselm in the direction of orthodox Christian views that the Reformers relied upon. It would be easier for them to understand Aquinas in where their current thought process lies.

Another strong influence in the Emergent church, Steve Chalke, said regarding the atonement in The Lost Message of Jesus, “The church’s inability to shake off the great distortion of God contained in the theory of penal substitution, with its inbuilt belief in retribution and the redemptive power of violence, has cost us dearly. (Chalke, 30-31)” Steve Chalke went further saying, “[we have] come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son?' (Chalke, 182).” Penal substitutionary atonement is not a “distortion.” The only thing that this doctrine has cost us is our pride. In losing pride one gains humility, which is not a bad thing as the Lord said in Matthew 18:4, “whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. [ESV]” Chalke would benefit from Aquinas’ view of the atonement in seeing that mankind deserves the punishment that Jesus Christ received. Also, the passion was not a “sudden decision” to “vent God the Father’s wrath.” It was a volitional act of Jesus Christ, and it was preordained. Our sin is a personal offense against God’s justice.

Mark Dever wrote of a theologian, Scot McKnight, who is sympathetic to the Emergent church movement as well in his article Nothing But the Blood, in response to McKnight’s book Jesus and His Death, “[McKnight] assumes that the last phrase in Mark 10:45 – ‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’ – reports not Jesus’ original words but Mark’s theologizing. And while admitting that the idea of substitution is strongly suggested here, he finally rejects it. (Dever, 32)” The Emergent Church is primarily based upon postmodern thought. They claim autonomy from Modernism, but D.A. Carson clearly identified that, “…postmodernism [is the] bastard child of modernism: the genetic descent can scarcely be denied… (Carson, 26 footnote 71)” Later in Carson’s book Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church he discusses the Emergent church’s view of the atonement. He quoted Brian McLaren saying, “…substitutionary atonement doesn’t address the question if why, if god wants to forgive us, he doesn’t just do it. How can punishing an innocent person make things better? ‘That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?’ (Carson, 166)” Cosmic child abuse is hardly what happened on the cross. This is an example of misunderstanding what Aquinas bridged to the reformers, namely, that, “Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears another’s punishment takes such punishment away. (Aquinas, Q. 50 A. 1)” This is love and justice, not abuse.

The problem that many postmodernists have with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement stems from their belief that it is not relevant to the culture today. In his extremely popular book Blue Like Jazz Don Miller said, “I don’t think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. (Miller, 111)” This is a very true statement, but the question remains, “what is the gospel?” Miller clarified what he meant by the gospel saying, “I realized, after reading those Gospels, that Jesus didn’t just love me out of principle; He didn’t just love me because it was the right thing to do. Rather, there was something inside me that caused Him to love me. (Miller, 238)” The Bible teaches that Jesus loves His chosen people without partiality (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25) and that He loves His people (John 3:16). Also, God propitiated His wrath from us by Jesus Christ’s work on the cross (Romans 3:24-25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). For Miller to say that the cross was only a display of God’s love to him because of some merit he has, and not because of the justice that took place on the cross is to contradict the biblical narrative. As Berkhof said, “If we represent the atonement as founded only in the righteousness and justice of God, we fail to do justice to the love of God as a moving cause of the atonement…If, on the other hand, we consider the atonement purely as an expression of the love of God, we fail to do justice to the righteousness and veracity of God, and we reduce the sufferings and the death of Christ to an unexplained enigma. (Berkhof, 368)” Miller said that the church is relevant only when it believes in the power of Christ’s gospel which he defines as Christ’s loving men because they have merit. Truth is relevant. Therefore, it is relevant to say that the justice of God was satisfied as well as the love of God was displayed in the death of Christ.

Oh, if you want the bibliography let me know I'll just email it to you...it's too long to post:)

Terms: Emergent vs. Emerging

Here are a few posts regarding what the origin of the terms Emerging and Emergent came from according to Dan Kimball.

Here are a few distinctions...

Emerging: The most current forms of methodology "emerging" in any/all church denominations.

Emergent: More theological/philosophical movement...an actual structured organization with identified leaders.

Here's a quick quote:

"Through time people started even saying 'Emergent Church' instead of 'Emerging Church' or use both terms as describing the same thing - instead of having Emergents focus more on theology and Emerging Church more on methodology as it started initially. [From Part Two]"

Here's part one, and part two.

[HT: Justin Taylor]

Emergent/Emerging Church

As of today I'm done posting on this movement. I feel that I may have overdone it a bit regarding this, but I am very concerned about this movement impacting Christ's church with incorrect beliefs about God.

If you have followed my posts, Thank you! If you haven't I'm going to be getting back to the Word and devotional type material today!

In Christ
Noah

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 4.2

Because the Bible is inerrant Christ's Church will be like dolphins in this world! Swimming against the current of the world according to the direction of the inerrant authoritative or as B.B. Warfield put it infallible Word!

J.C. Ryle wrote this in Principles for Churchmen of Christians:
(pg. 72 of J.I. Packer's "Faithfulness and Holiness")

"[Dislike of dogma] is an epidemic which is just now doing great harm, and especially among young people....It produces what I must venture to call...a "jelly-fish" Christianity in the land: that is, a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power. A jelly-fish...is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little, delicate, transparent umbrella. Yet the same jelly-fish, when cast on the shore, is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation. Alas! It is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, "No dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine." We have hundreds of "jelly-fish" clergymen, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity. They have no definite opinions; they belong to no school or party; they are so afraid of "extreme views" that they have no views at all. We have thousands of "jelly-fish" sermons preached every year, sermons without an edge, or a point, or a corner, smooth as billiard balls, awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint. We have Legions of "jelly-fish" young men annually turned out from our Universities, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion, and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what is Christian truth. They live apparently in a state of suspense, like Mahomet's fabled coffin, hanging between heaven and earth...And last, and worst of all, we have myriads of "jelly-fish" worshippers - respectable Church-going people, who have no definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ, any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors. They think everybody is right and nobody is wrong, everything is true and nothing is false, all sermons are good and none are bad, every clergyman is sound and no clergyman unsound. They are "tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine"; often carried away by any new excitement and sensational movement; ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old; and utterly unable to "render a reason of the hope that is in them."...Never was it so important for laymen to hold systematic views of truth, and for ordained ministers to "enunciate dogma" very clearly and distinctly in their teaching." (Emphasis added)

Now that's a quote!

That humbles my heart very much...I hope it humbles you too. Let us not be jelly-fish to just be taken on by this Emergent/Emerging Movement because we don't know any better. Let us not be ignorant of our rich orthodox Christian heritage!

Check out what John Piper has to say on the "jelly-fish" theme!

(From his sermon on 12/22/1985 titled "But God" on Ephesians 2:1-9)

"Don't you really want to be FREE from the spirit of the age. Why would anybody want to be jelly fish carried around by currents in the sea of secularism? You can be a dolphin, and swim against the currents and against the tide. Jelly fish aren't free. Dolphins are free." (Emphasis added)

(From Piper's sermon on 12/29/1985 titled "God Glorified in Good Resolves" on 2 Thessalonians 1:3-12)

"So when I use the term "resolve" this morning I want you to understand it in a sense broad enough to include all the acts of the mind that go out after goodness. For some that may be a resolute, considered, thought-through goal. For others it may be a more intuitive, less reflective pursuit. But in either case, what I mean to exclude is a jelly-fish approach to life that just floats with the currents of the times and the spirit of the age. All Christians should be dolphins in the sea of secularism whether your goals are felt intuitively as deep desires or whether they are weighed and considered and resolved." (Emphasis added)

(From Piper's book "Don't Waste Your Life" on pg. 125-126)

Consumed with Clothes

"Or think about clothes. What a tragedy to see so many young people obsessed with what they wear and how they look. Even Christian youth seem powerless to ask greater questions than "What's wrong with it?" Like: Will these clothes help me magnify Christ? Will they point people to him as the manifest Treasure of my life? Will they highlight my personhood, created in the image of God to serve, or will they highlight my sexuality? Or my laziness? Trust me, I'm not hung up on clothes. There are some pretty radical, Christ-exalting reasons to dress down. My plea is that you be more like dolphin and less like a jelly-fish in the sea of fashion - and of contra-fashion (which is just as tyrannizing). (Emphasis added)

Christians, let us be less like "jelly-fish" and more like "dolphins". I'm afraid the Emergent Church is a movement taking advantage of us jelly-fish. Let us guard ourselves in Christ and the doctrine we have received as His church that is rooted in the inerrant Bible!

In Christ
Noah

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 4.1

Inerrancy Continued

Below is a post I posted a while ago…I’m putting it here because it fits where I’m at in my concerns of Emergent very well.

NY Times on the Emergent Church and “Evangelicalism”

In a recent article in the NY Times there is a discussion on “Evangelicals debating the meaning of ‘Evangelical.’” (Click here to read it.)

Lower down in the article is a quote I couldn’t help but notice. I have been following what is known as the “Emergent Church” for some time now…and this sentence really caught my attention.

“[regarding the Emerging Church] It emphasizes reading the Bible as a narrative, perfect in its purposes but not necessarily inerrant; de-emphasizing individual salvation in favor of a more holistic mission in serving the world; even making evangelicals less absolutist on whether people from other religions might find their way to heaven.”

I’m not sure what the Emerging Church has to say about this, but article says further down

“But Brian D. McLaren, founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church outside of Baltimore and a chief apostle of the emerging church, argues that he is not promoting relativism; rather, he believes the evangelical movement has been hijacked theologically, as well as politically, by its more fundamentalist elements, something he is trying to correct. ‘In many, many areas, I'm looking at polarization,’ he said, ‘and I'm looking at a third way.'"

Al Mohler says this, “A third way between what? It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that those who stand in continuity with the founders of evangelicalism have hijacked the evangelical movement.”

Check out Al Mohler’s blog on this here
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow…interesting stuff.

If the emerging church really denies the inerrancy of Scripture…then outright that is antithetical to what the E-free statement of faith teaches...what we believe (check out the first point of the statement of faith here).

The first point of our statement of faith is:

(1) The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life. (Emphasis added)

When approaching the theology of the Emergent/Emerging Church be very discerning and very careful. There is a wide array of what different churches practice that call themselves Emerging/Emergent Churches, but Brian McLaren and others who are identified as the leaders of this movement embrace a theology that is different than much of orthodox Christianity. They use words that are very vague to describe their theology...so it's confusing to figure out what they actually do believe...so be very careful. There are some healthy orthodox Christian churches who use the title Emergent who have a more orthodox approach to theology, but they are selling themselves short using the title Emergent. The Emerging church is surrounded by questions as to what they believe. Those churches that are healthy in their theology are just confusing the matter more. In the end this movement may turn out to have good theology attached to it's name, but right now it's way up in the air!

Also, here is a quote from an article that the Emergent Church cites from their own webpage. Here's what an article in Christianity Today says (the Emergent website links to this article):

Then it stopped working." The Bells [leaders of an Emergent church] started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—"discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat."

There is definitely more to say... but specifically if you have heard of the Emerging/Emergent Church be very careful when reading or approaching their material.

If you're interested here's a good book you can read on it...D.A. Carson's Being Conversant with Emergent.

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 4

Inerrancy

I believe that one more quote of B.B. Warfield sums up much of what the Emergent/Emerging Church is:

(From B.B. Warfield's critical review of "Mysticism and Christianity". Volume X, pg. 366)

“Mysticism [any movment that throws out inerrancy] is a religion, and supplies a refuge for men of religious mind who find it no longer possible for them to rest on 'external authority.'…Once turn away from revelation and little choice remains to you but the choice between Mysticism and Rationalism.”

I agree with the Emergent Church’s desire to do more theology in reaching out to the poor and needy. I agree with them that there is a desperate need for a reformation in evangelicalism, but through good theology [At the end of my posts on my concerns on Emergent I will recommend movements that I believe are better solutions to reformation in the church] and through faithfulness to the Word as the inerrant words of God as BB Warfield states:

(The works of B.B. Warfield Volume I, "Revelation and Inspiration" pg. 396)

“Inspiration is that extraordinary, supernatural influence (or, passively, the result of it,) exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and, therefore, perfectly infallible.” (Emphasis added)

BB Warfield clearly believed the Bible to be authoritative/inerrant. Or as he said “perfectly infallible.” Wow!

Tony Jones (National Coordinator for Emergent-US) said in a recent seminar the following:

(1) inerrancy (the word ‘inerrant’) is an invention of the 20th century (1973) [some Chicago council] logical positivism
(2) inerrancy holds the Bible to an external standard, but the Bible holds internal integrity.

Wow! As the quote just given above by BB Warfield the concept of inerrancy was believed by scholars before 1973! That’s a bold teaching [and a lie] from Emergent! Also, the Bible is the authoritative external standard for all living.

Also, Tony Jones said this, “'They [evangelicals] need to read Paul through the lens of Jesus and not Jesus through the lens of Paul.' – Tony…evangelicals should rip Romans out of the Bible for a few years.” These quotes on inerrancy are enough to convince me not to embrace the Emergent/Emerging Movement!

All that I have to say is that I'm not ripping Romans out of my Bible! Whatever happened to the treasuring of the following Scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (ESV)" (Emphasis added)

and,

2 Peter 1:19-21 "And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (ESV)." (Emphasis added)

If the national coordinator of Emergent-US speaks false truth [lies!], and misleads from what Scripture teaches...that tells me to avoid embracing this movement.

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 3

Relevance of Christ and His Church to the World

B.B. Warfield in the same critical review from my last post,

“No one will doubt that Christians of to-day must state their Christian belief in terms of modern thought. Every age has a language of its own and can speak no other. Mischief comes only when, instead of stating Christian belief in terms of modern thought, an effort is made, rather, to state modern thought in terms of Christian belief.” (Emphasis added)

Further he says,

“[These young men] are preoccupied with modern thought and appear to suppose that Christianity must be assimilated to it. They open their Introduction by telling us that “Christianity” as well as “its traditional theology” originated in past of outworn conditions…” (Emphasis added)

B.B. Warfield in a critical review of a book called “Foundations. A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought.” The works of B.B. Warfield Volume X, pg. 322

This statment, "originated in the past of outworn conditions," sounds very much like what the Emergent Church says.

Traditional theology isn’t rooted only in Modernist or Victorian wineskins. It is rooted in the authoritative inerrant Bible! Absolute truth in the Word given to us in the canon of Scripture [The Bible] is authoritative! So if stating things clearly (which has occurred all through history in statements/confessions of faith…not just in Modernism) as to what we believe is only showing our acceptance of the authoritative Word of God.

Recently Brian McLaren [a leader in the Emergent Church] wondered:

“why the vision in Dan Brown’s book [The Da Vinci Code] is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church.”

To which Tim Challies [a Christian blogger] said, "That's because they hate the Jesus of the Bible, Brian!"

(HT: Justin Taylor)

I would have to completely agree with Tim Challies. Check out this quote from John Piper:

“The glory of Jesus Christ is that he is always out of sync with the world and therefore always relevant for the world. If he fit nicely, he would be of little use. The effort to remake the Jesus of the Bible so that he fits the spirit of one generation makes him feeble in another. Better to let him be what he is, because it is often the offensive side of Jesus that we need most.” (John Piper in "Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, pg. 99)

I believe that the absolute truth of the Bible is definitely out of sync with the world. That’s why it’s so relevant. Why would we want to make what is “out of sync,” for the purpose of bringing glory to Christ, “in sync?” To do so would undermine the purposes of God. So in every age what is thought to be the old way of thinking is made into a caricature so that the new way of thinking can achieve its agenda. And in the case of the Emergent/Emerging Church they won’t really clearly make their theological agenda known.

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 2

Approach to the Culture

The Emergent/Emerging Church won’t state clearly what they believe. Saying that Jesus didn’t have a mission statement is ridiculous. He did, namely what is revealed in the authoritative Word, the Bible. And there are a lot of things that the Bible teaches that are covered throughout the entire thing that need to be clearly stated because it would be easy for people to incorrectly interpret what the Bible says. I know I have done this myself!

In order for something to be true there has to be a set of absolutes. Like this is a car...so saying this is a car would be true. This isn’t something that found it’s beginning in Modernism as the Emergent/Emerging Church teaches.

In my last post LeRon Shults said this:

“Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins?”

He couldn’t have given a better opportunity to segway into what a great theologian stated in 1913 in response to Modernism taking over the older Victorian philosophical approach to culture and theology. Check this out and judge for yourself if what they were proposing sounds vaguely familiar to LeRon’s statement above even though it was said almost 100 years ago!

(In the following quote Warfield is speaking from his opposition's perspective.)
“[These] are times of of transition. The Victorian [Modern] age is gone; and the assumptions on which Victorian [Modern] religion was built up have been dissipated. What was thought to be the bed-rock has become shifting sand. A new world has come into being, a new world which is asking questions. The repetition of old answers can serve no purpose. New answers must be framed, and these answers must be couched in the 'terms of modern [postmodern] thought.'…[Young men of this age] think in other terms; they must at least attempt to express what they think in the terms of the though-world in which they live. And, indeed to be perfectly frank, if Christianity cannot be expressed in terms of this new thought-world, Christianity is doomed. Men of the time are under the stress of a great obligation, therefore, at least to attempt to pour the old wine of Christianity into the new bottles of modern [postmodern] thought.” (Emphasis added, and I put in brackets some application to more contemporary terms.)

B.B. Warfield in a critical review of a book called “Foundations. A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought.” The works of B.B. Warfield Volume X, pg. 320

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 1.4

You might ask, "Why are mission statements important?"

They are clear precise ways to communicate what you believe. In case we didn't all realize the Bible is huge. There is a ton in there! A statement of faith is an example of what we believe regarding it.

(1) If those beliefs change over time (Remember God is unchangeable [Job 23:13; Hebrews 6:17-18; etc.], so even though our perception of God may change...He doesn't change!) then we can revise our statements of faith. The Evangelical Free Church of America is currently revising and changing their statement of faith (go here to follow this...the Draft revision links are at the far right side of the webpage.) So you can see that our developing a statement of faith has not stopped the conversation as to what we believe.

(2) If what we believe needs more clarification because it isn't clear then we can further clarify on that in revisions as well.

What does this have to do with the Emergent/Emerging Church?

Well, they won't clarify their beliefs. I emailed Brian McLaren probably about a year and a half ago asking if they had a mission statement for the ECM. He did not reply. To be fair he may have never received the email, but here is a response recently posted that might shed a little light on the situation as to why they don't want a mission statement.

This will be long...I'm sorry, but following are some quotes from the national coordinator for Emergent-US Tony Jones in response to why they don't have or want a mission statement:

From Tony Jones, National Coordinator, Emergent-U.S.

Yes, we have been inundated with requests for our statement of faith in Emergent, but some of us had an inclination that to formulate something would take us down a road that we don't want to trod. So, imagine our joy when a leading theologian joined our ranks and said that such a statement would be disastrous.

That's what happened when we started talking to LeRon Shults, late of Bethel Seminary and now heading off to a university post in Norway. LeRon is the author of many books, all of which you should read and now the author a piece to guide us regarding statements of faith and doctrine. Read on...

From LeRon Shults:

The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a "statement of faith" to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.

Why is such a move unnecessary?

(1) Jesus did not have a "statement of faith." He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a "statement of faith" is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties – and this brings us to the next point.

(2) Such a move would be inappropriate. Various communities throughout church history have often developed new creeds and confessions in order to express the Gospel in their cultural context, but the early modern use of linguistic formulations as "statements" that allegedly capture the truth about God with certainty for all cultures and contexts is deeply problematic for at least two reasons.

First, such an approach presupposes a (Platonic or Cartesian) representationalist view of language, which has been undermined in late modernity by a variety of disciplines across the social and physical sciences (e.g., sociolinguistics and paleo-biology). Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins?

Second, and more importantly from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

Why would it be disastrous? Emergent aims to facilitate a conversation among persons committed to living out faithfully the call to participate in the reconciling mission of the biblical God. Whether it appears in the by-laws of a congregation or in the catalog of an educational institution, a "statement of faith" tends to stop conversation. Such statements can also easily become tools for manipulating or excluding people from the community. Too often they create an environment in which real conversation is avoided out of fear that critical reflection on one or more of the sacred propositions will lead to excommunication from the community. Emergent seeks to provide a milieu in which others are welcomed to join in the pursuit of life "in" the One who is true (1 John 5:20). Giving into the pressure to petrify the conversation in a "statement" would make Emergent easier to control; its critics could dissect it and then place it in a theological museum alongside other dead conceptual specimens the curators find opprobrious. But living, moving things do not belong in museums. Whatever else Emergent may be, it is a movement committed to encouraging the lively pursuit of God and to inviting others into a delightfully terrifying conversation along the way.

This does not mean, as some critics will assume, that Emergent does not care about belief or that there is no role at all for propositions. Any good conversation includes propositions, but they should serve the process of inquiry rather than shut it down. Emergent is dynamic rather than static, which means that its ongoing intentionality is (and may it ever be) shaped less by an anxiety about finalizing state-ments than it is by an eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit’s disturbing and comforting presence, which is always reforming us by calling us into an ever-intensifying participation in the Son’s welcoming of others into the faithful embrace of God.

[I edited this a little bit for clarity in reading.]

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 1.3

Mission Statements

(1) At my home church we have a mission statement of faith (click here to view it).

(2) At my current seminary (Reformed Theological Seminary) we have a statement of faith (click here to view it).

(3) At RTS they also hold to the confession of faith put forth in 1646 in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

(4) At Capitol Hill Baptist Church (where I am applying for a church apprenticeship program) they have a statement of faith (click here to view it).

(5) At Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I'm applying for full time seminary) they have a statement of faith. (Click here to view it).

(6) Luther in 1518 presented (with others) the Heidelberg Disputation and the 95 Thesis are examples of his statement of faith.

(7) The Apostle's Creed from the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, the Nicene Creed written in 325 AD and revised at Constantinople in 381 AD, the Athanasian Creed from the 4th and 5th centuries AD, the Chalcedon Creed written in 451 AD, and the The Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople's Creed written in 553 AD were all early confessions that orthodox Christians wrote. Christiasn have almost always developed some kind of written statement about what they believe.

(8) We also have the Articles of Religion (39 Articles, written 1571 in the Church of England), Canons of the council of Orange written 529 AD, etc.

(9) Most recently the New Hampshire Baptist Confession written in 1833, the Baptist Faith and Message written in 1925...revised 1963, 2000, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy written in 1978.

There are many more statements/confessions of faith, but these are some of the main ones. Some of the links I attached didn't have the dates on them. So for the ones that didn't I obtained the dates from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 1.2

This drives us to the question, "What is Theology?" right?

J.I. Packer is awesome when it comes to this...check out what he thinks...

He poses this question (Knowing God Pp. 18-19),

"But wait a minute...tell me this. Is our journey really necessary? In Spurgeon's day, we know, people found theology interesting, but I find it boring. Why need anyone take time off today for the kind of study you propose? Surely a layperson, at any rate, can get on without it? After all, this is the twentieth century [Now twenty-first century], not the nineteenth!"

Further he says,

"A fair question! - but there is, I think, a convincing answer to it. The questioner clearly assumes that a study of the nature and character of God will be impractical and irrelevant for life. In fact, however, it is the most practical project anyone can engage in. Knowing about God is crucially important for the living of our lives."

"As it would be cruel to an Amazonian tribesman to fly him to London, put him down without explanation in Trafalgar Square and leave him, as one who knew nothing of English or England, to fend for himself, so we are cruel to ourselves if we try to live in this world without knowing about the God whose world it is and who runs it."

Pp. 20 He cites Five Foundational Truths of Christian's knowledge of God...

(1) God has spoken to man, the Bible is his Word, given to us to make us wise unto salvation.

(2) God is Lord and King over his world; he rules all things for his own glory, displaying his perfections in all that he does, in order that men and angels may worship and adore him.

(3) God is Savior, active in sovereign love through the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue believers from teh guilt and power of sin, to adopt them as his children and to bless them accordingly.

(4) God is triune; there are within the Godhead three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the work of salvation is one in which all three act together, the Father purposing redemption, the Son securing it and the Spirit applying it.

(5) Godliness means responding to God's revelation in trust and obedience, faith and worship, prayer and praise, submission and service. Life must be seen and lived in the light of God's Word. This, and nothing else, is true religion.

In essence these 5 foundations represent a starting point from which we are to develop our world view. This is one reason why when I join an organization, support one, or refer one I look at their Mission Statement. Mission statements are really important because they help those who are a part of an organization clearly understand why they exist, what their purpose is, and gives them a foundational starting point to develop deeper understanding of God and a starting point for clear communication of those beliefs to others.

(UPDATE 5/17/06: I listened to an interview yesterday (5/16/06) between Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan III, and David Wells. David Wells' thesis for what Theology means in his book "No Place for Truth" is below:

1.) Confessional rooted in Scripture as divinely inspired and authoritative and relevant for all life and conduct. The truth that God has given us.

2.) Reflection/Thought life understanding of how truth has reached us through history. To think about that truth.

3.) Cultivation. Development of spirituality and moral life and practice based upon and growing out of that authoritative truth and not based upon technique and the psychological culture in which we are living today even though we receive valuable insights, but they have to justify themselves at the bar of truth.

This helps define what theology is from the "Evangelical's" perspective.

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 1.1

The Church

To quote Mark Dever from The Deliberate Church (Pp. 26),

"Fundamentally, God intends the local church to be a corporate display of His glory and wisdom, both to unbelievers and to unseen spiritual powers (John 13:34-35; Ephesians 3:10-11). More specifically, we are a corporate dwelling place fo God's spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17), the organic body of Christ in which He magnifies His glory (Acts 9:4; 1 Corinthians 12). The Greek word is ekklēsia (ἐκκλησία), a gathering or congregating of people. The church is God's vehicle for displaying His glory to His creation."

Later he says how we should build it (Pp. 27-28),

"...let us be clear on the relationship between the Gospel of Christ and the method of its ministers.

(1) Theology drives method.

Whether we realize it or not, our thinking on the Gospel will shape the way we share it. Our theology of the Good News will be brought to bear on how we build the church. [Note: Remember though that Jesus is ultimately the one who is building His Church Matthew 16:18.]

(2) God's methods determine ours.

The methods we use to plant and water in God's vineyard must be subservient to and in complete harmony with the working of God's growth method - the Gospel, as faithfully preached by His servants. Working contrary to God's processes often means working contrary to His purposes.

(3) The Gospel both enables and informs our participation in God's purposes.

We are not even able to enter the Kingdom of God, much less minister in it, unless His Gospel first does its work in us; not do we know how to minister in His kingdom unless His Gospel first provides the parameters for doing so. As such, the Gospel alone must both shape and evaluate any ministry method we use.

(4) Faithfulness to the Gospel must be our measure of success, not results.

The power of God for spiritual life and genuine holiness is in the Gospel. So fidelity is paramount, not innovation, and not immediately observable results. Simon the Magician drew a crowd - he even had them calling him the Power of God; but his power, motive, and message were fraudulent (Acts 8:9-11). Our call is to fidelity as messengers. Only God causes real growth (1 Corinthians 3:6-7), and He does so by the Gospel (Romans 10:14-17; Galatians 2:1-5)."

We aren't perfect, so every method we attempt to do will not be perfect. But we must strive for God's way of building His church, or "doing church". If theology drives everything we must have a clear understanding of what the actual theology is.

I think that those under the banner of the Emergent Church may agree with this. Many churches under the banner of Evangelicalism aren't genuinely pursuing truth in teaching and living, so many Emergent Church Movement leaders are trying to pioneer (in their eyes) "living/doing theology." This is good only if the theology is good.

More to come!

In Christ
Noah

Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church Movement? Part 1

As I have been trying to define the Emergent/Emerging Church through these posts I hope you can tell that I was trying to be fairly objective in what I was writing…

I was trying to understand and gain a clear understanding of the following:

(1) Current reality of the size, ecclesiology, and leadership of the movement.
(2) The historical context
(3) Comparison to other movements
(4) The Emergent/Emerging Church Movement's priorities
(5) Other Characteristics of the movement.

I’m sure there is much more that could be said to lay out an understanding of the entire thing. Honestly, since this movement is an organism it can evade many definitions, but we must attempt to have an understanding of it's breadth.

So the question remaining is, “Why do I care?” Well, I think we should care because this movement I believe is limiting the clear communication of the gospel!

Honestly, when I look at their qualities from my last post (What is the Emerging Church Movement? Part 7) I think to myself… “self, these qualities are amazingly radical, and Christ exalting.” However, when you begin to look at the theological teaching that is so ingrained in what they teach in the midst of their missional living there are some major RED FLAGS and CONCERNS as to how clear the gospel is communicated. This directly impacts whether or not what they do exalts Christ. I believe that what the full counsel of what the Bible teaches is not clearly, and correctly taught within much of this movement.

Please continue to follow my posting as I will now move from a defining stage to a stage of pointing out concerns regarding the Emergent/Emerging Church movement.

In Christ
Noah

What Is the Emerging Church Movement? Part 7

[This post is an edited version of what Justin Taylor wrote in a post linked at the bottom of this post.]

In this series of posts, I'm trying to understand the emerging church movement before I attempt any critique or offer any concerns.

I want to commend to you a brand-new book, published by Baker Books, entitled Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, both of Fuller Seminary.

I expect this book to quickly become a standard reference in the ongoing conversation. Key leaders within emerging churches are also recommending it as the best book currently available:

· “Quite simply the best book yet on the emerging church.” (Andrew Jones)
· “If you want to be truly conversant with emerging churches, this is the book to read.” (Brian McLaren)
· “The best book available on the emerging church.” (John R. Franke)

Gibbs and Bolger spent five years interviewing participants in the “emergent conversation.” Rejecting a definitional approach that would clearly demarcate who is “in” and who is “out,” they have chosen to label as Emerging Churches those faith communities that are engaged in particular processes.

Gibbs and Bolger first identified churches “that take culture, specifically postmodern culture, very seriously.” They next identified nine activities/practices that were common to these churches. Very few of the churches they surveyed exhibited all nine. So they broke it down into three core practices and six derivative practices. Their expansive definition, build upon these nine practices, is as follows:
Emerging Churches are those:

(1) who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live, and
(2) who transform the secular realm,
(3) as they live highly communal lives.

Because of these three activities, emerging churches

(4) welcome those who are outside,
(5) share generously,
(6) participate,
(7) create,
(8) lead without control, and
(9) function together in spiritual activities.

Boiling it down to one sentence: “Emerging Churches are communities who practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.” Or another way of saying the same thing: “Emerging Churches are missional communities arising from within postmodern culture, consisting of followers of Jesus seeking to be faithful in their place and time.”

Click here to see the original post Justin Taylor wrote on this on 11/17/2005.

What Is the Emerging Church Movement? Part 6

[This post is an edited version of what Justin Taylor wrote in a post linked at the bottom of this post.]

One way to understand the self-described goals of Emergent is to read the Order and Rule of the Emergent Village. At EmergentVillage.com, they write that “Members of emergent hold in common four values and practices that flow from them.” I will list these four values, along with some distinctives beneath them, encouraging you to go to the website to see this unpacked:

(1) Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus

(a) Great Commandment (love God, love neighbor)
(b) Holistic gospel
(c) Generous orthodoxy

(2) Commitment to the Church in all its Forms

(a) Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal
(b) Irenic and inclusive, not elitist and critical
(c) "Deep ecclesiology”

(3) Commitment to God’s World

(a) Practice faith missionally—following Christ into the world

(4) Commitment to One Another

(a) Growing, global, generative, and non-exclusive friendship.

We could summarize this core commitments as: (1) pro-Jesus, (2) pro-church, (3) pro-world, and (4) pro-Koinonia.

Click here to see the original post Justin Taylor wrote on this on 11/17/2005.

What Is the Emerging Church Movement? Part 5

[This post is an edited version of what Justin Taylor wrote in a post linked at the bottom of this post.]

A clarification on terminology. In an earlier post, I distinguished between Emergent and Emerging. The two are difficult to keep straight, and few are careful with the distinction. The important thing is to understand that there is a conceptual distinction, even if there isn't always a linguistic one.

Click here to see the original post Justin Taylor wrote on this on 11/17/2005.

What Is the Emerging Church Movement? Part 4

[This post is an edited version of what Justin Taylor wrote in a post linked at the bottom of this post.]

The emerging church movement is not a North American phenomenon only. There are thousands of emerging Christians in Western Europe and the South Pacific—and to a lesser extent, there is development in Asia, Africa, and South America. Given the audience for this presentation and my lack of acquaintance with models outside the U.S., I will mainly focus on the American version. But do keep in mind that this is part of a larger worldwide conversation with its own dynamic and nuances.

Click here to see the original post Justin Taylor wrote on this on 11/17/2005.