Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Fantastic Four
I know there was a guy who shoots fire, there is a guy who is big like a rock, there is a stretchy guy......and.....ummm...... sorry, if you thought this was a blog about the super characters or the not so super movie that shares a title with this blog, I am sorry to disappoint. Maybe you should hang around while I show you the original Fantastic Four. These four young men were taken from their home country to a foreign land, were given new names, were held captive and forced to serve a foreign king, but they managed to be a part of what is a fantastic turn of events. The names, Belteshazzar, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego were names that were forced on them by their captors, but Daniel and his friends could not be forced to compromise what they believed in. In case you were wondering, Belteshazzar is the Babylonian name for Daniel. We see these Fantastic Four several times in the Old Testament, and as a result of their faithfulness to God, and as a result of His faithfulness to them, they were all four spared from death in situations where death was 100% assured. Or was it? If you remember, Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego were tossed into a fiery furnace and were saved by an angel, and no harm came to them. This is a remarkable story in and of itself, but I want to focus on the famous story of Daniel and the Lion's den. After King Darius the Mede was tricked into sentencing Daniel to death in the lion's den, the King was greatly vexed and didn't even sleep the night before Daniel was placed in the den. We must remember that Daniel was in a foreign land with foreign gods, and it is in the final words of Darius that we see how great an example the life of Daniel was. As Daniel was being placed in the lion's den, the king spoke, "may your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you." This is an idol worshiping king who spoke these words to Daniel. Do you think that Daniel's faith was real? Do you think it was evidenced on a daily basis? Do you think it had an impact on those around him? This foreign king held on to the thought that the God of Daniel could actually save him. Do you believe this much? Do those around you know that you believe this much? Look at how the story ends. Daniel is saved from lions, and Darius is so amazed that he issues a decree that all people "tremble in fear before the God of Daniel". In fact, Darius' words can only find their poetic equal in the Psalms. "For He is the Living God, and he endures forever; His kingdom will never be destroyed, and His dominion has no end. He rescues and delivers; he performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth, for he has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions." (Daniel 6 :26,27) Is our God any less powerful today?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
What has been will be again.
What has been done will be done again.
There is nothing new under the sun.- Eccl 1:9
From the 2nd century heresies of Marcion, to the liberal theology of the social gospel nearly 1800 years later, we find that theological events have proven out the writers’ words over and over again. Our current world is no exception to this statement. Although the Emergent church may not be as doctrinally abrasive as Marcion, this may be only because the Emergent church is far more timid in espousing any theological positions, not that the Emergent church is any more theologically sound. In 2 Peter 2: 1 we are not warned of heretical doctrines that are so far a field that it does not require much discernment to figure out their fallacy, we are warned instead, of the “secret bringing of destructive heresies”. This seems to be the bent of the Emergent Church. They have taken the seed of deconstruction, covered it in the language of Jesus, and sprinkled it with cultural relativism to create a hybrid creature that has no seeming theological direction, either forward or backward. It is exactly the nebulous and nefarious nature of the Emergent church that prompts our need for clarity. It is this authors’ hope that this clarity will be found in this brief essay as we expose how the deconstructionist mindset of the Emergent church undermines the concepts of Biblical inerrancy, the existence of absolute Biblical truth, and the nature of Salvation.
As with most theological studies, we must first find our terminological bearings. The term emergent may be something a new term, and it is certainly one that has been thrown around with dozens of different meanings attached to it. The fact that the Emergent church and its leaders seem reluctant at best or evasive at worst when asked about their theological foundations does not make the job of definition any easier, but a contrast between the terms emergent and Emergent church should give us enough clarity to make sense of this paper. The distinction between the emergent movement and the Emergent church is best summed up by Mark Devine, as he splits the emergent camps into 2 categories. “There is the doctrinally friendly (emergent) camp, and there is the doctrinally averse (Emergent Church) camp.” We do not have any theological issues with the emergent camp as it keeps orthodox theology intact while seeking to reach the world for Christ where the world is at. The emergent movement in general does not feel the need to discard centuries of Biblically based orthodoxy. The Emergent church, however, presents us with enough theological deficiencies that a thorough study of its beliefs, particularly in relation to Biblical inerrancy and authority is not only important, but is an absolute necessity. This study and defining of the Emergent church is not an easy task, however. The Emergent church has tried its very best to shy away from any centralized power when it comes to organizational structure, which in and of itself seems incongruous as their are obviously individuals such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Phyllis Tickle, and Brian Maclaren who have made careers of promoting literature, websites, conferences and educational institutions that espouse their deconstructionist mindset. To the untrained eye, this seems more of a way to maintain theological mobility rather than a lack of a corporately shared ideology. These individuals certainly agree on many points and appear at the same conferences and speak the same terminology, so one could rightfully question why they fight so much against being centrally organized. That being said, there is a diversity of opinions about a variety of issues amongst these individuals, but the uniquely binding factor between these leaders and the Emergent church movement is that Biblical relevance and inerrancy is sacrificed at the altar of cultural relativism.
The first step that many of these leaders take in the journey toward discounting Biblical authority is the same one that Marcion proposed nearly 2000 years ago, that the Old Testament offers us nothing that is usable as far as teaching, rebuking, correcting or training in righteousness. (1 Tim 3:16) In fact, the primary focus of Emergent church leaders is the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, with the exception that the culminating death of Jesus has no bearing on Salvation. Even this focus on the gospel has been molded to fit the beliefs of Emergent church leaders such as Brian Maclaren who warns that Jesus did not mean in John 14:6 that “I am in the way of people seeking truth and life”. Maclaren goes on to say that “ this path is not about competing with other faith traditions. It’s about living a way of grace, love, forgiveness and peace.” This sounds like a perfectly acceptable description of the life of Jesus and the lessons that we are to take from that life, but what it does not seem to explain effectively is the purpose for that life. If we needed someone to give us an example of grace, love, forgiveness and peace, then it did not necessarily need to be one who was perfect or even one who was God, for that matter. The orthodox Christian cannot help but be concerned about the door holding Universalism at bay being blown wide open, and left hanging on weakened hinges. This is a recurring practice throughout much of the Emergent literature. In their attempt to pursue cultural relativism and in their efforts to be inclusive, the Emergent church takes a hard stand against taking a hard stand, which in and of itself seems incongruent, but it is their widely held practice, nonetheless. When asked about finding a theological center, Emergent church leader Tony Jones responded, “statements of faith are about drawing borders, which means you have to load you weapons and place soldiers at those borders. It becomes an obsession-guarding the borders. Statements of faith don’t invite people into the kingdom. They are a modernistic endeavor that I am not the least bit interested in.” This is a continuing theme, and it proposes that no absolutes be adhered to, rather it proposes that each experience dictates truth. This is contrary to the word of God where the concept of truth is not ambiguous and is embodied in Jesus.
It seems that Jones, Maclaren, Bell, and many of the other Emergent church “thinkers” engage in the cognitive distortion of All or Nothing thinking as a foundational principle for nearly all of their decisions regarding the Emergent church. It begins with the very formation of the Emergent church and continues all the way to the treatments of Eschatology, Soteriology and Christology. The Emergent church seems adamant that there is no middle ground between a church that is reaching out to culture and one that is orthodox in their beliefs. In fact Brian Maclaren brings a charge that “the failing of modern Christianity is that it has specialized in dealing with “spiritual needs” to the exclusion of physical and social needs.” If there were a point where one were to begin to consider terms such as heretical, it would be very close at hand. It is also a faulty conclusion to state that the modern church is not interested in community outreach, and a shaky foundation for discarding what are some of the most vital tenants of the Christian faith. Even if we were to admit that there are not orthodox evangelical churches out there, reaching out to their communities, what would be the explanation for the doctrine friendly emergent church? As we can see in the evidence of the doctrine friendly emergent church, it is indeed possible to maintain a sound theological base while engaging the world and community around you. Why then does the Emergent church feel that this task is impossible? Does taking a stand on doctrine preclude you from reaching out to the community, or is it just distasteful to take a stand? This is one of the most glaring issues that can be found in a study of the Emergent church. The only area where absolute truth seems to exist is in the fact that the modern evangelical church has failed, and that a massive deconstruction needs to take place. It seems as if even the leaders of the Emergent church do not know where this might lead, and this is often a point of pride for those who are in leadership within the movement. This lack of doctrinal direction has been eschewed for a “conversation” about theology. This “conversation” is a large part of the Emergent church and in the arena of theology seems to take preeminence over any theological fact. In fact, it seems to be a point of pride as is evidenced by Brian Maclaren in A Generous Orthodoxy.
A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.
Maclaren continues to propose that “our understanding of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted...and we must continually rediscover the gospel.” In what seems to be a sharp departure from any professed spiritual thinker, Maclaren suggests that nothing can be known, but that everything must be talked about. What exactly this “conversation” that is proposed by the Emergent church is supposed to accomplish is still unknown, as the Emergent Village movement is over 10 years old, and amongst all of that conversing, the leaders of the movement have still not reached solid footing regarding any spiritual issue but the unknowability of spiritual absolutes. “The danger that this viewpoint poses for the role of Christianity is an imminent one, and it poses an even larger risk to the survival of the Emergent church, as it has already proven that when these “conversations” reach different conclusions, then it has splintered into smaller groups and without some theological unity, this movement faces extinction.” This might not be a lamentable outcome for Christian orthodoxy, but one must wonder how many souls will accompany this movement into oblivion if this were to happen.
The unknowable nature of Christian doctrine according to the Emergent church calls into question the clarity of Scripture, and as Scripture is an extension of the power of God, it call into questions God’s omnipotence and questions God’s nature. “The person and work of God are everywhere interrelated in Scripture, so much that whatever is true about the character of God is true about the nature of God’s Word. Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question God’s ability to communicate clearly.” This leads to a whole myriad of Biblical issues that the Emergent church refuses to take a stand on, and continues to subject Biblical authority to human “conversation” in order to determine truth and relevance. We will see in the next section some specific areas of Biblical truth where the Emergent church seems to act outside the realm of Biblical truth. One of these areas where the Emergent church has taken its leave from orthodox Christianity is in the area of Biblical interpretation regarding homosexuality. Tony Jones, one of the founding members of the Emergent church movement explains what conclusions he reached regarding this issue. Jones “now believes that gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and queers can live lives in accordance with Biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can) and that their monogamy can and should be blessed by the church and state.” Jones is not alone in his acceptance that the GLBTQ lifestyle should be blessed by the church, and this seems to be a recurrent theme and a major attractant for the Emergent church. Once again, the Emergent church rightfully points out what has been a traditional failing of the orthodox evangelical church, but proposes that the means by which to remedy this shortcoming is to do away with any moral absolutes. If you were to enter a church and take a poll of individuals who had been in a congregation where homosexuality was not only preached against, but those who engaged in it were reviled, it would not be long before you found some who had seen this or been a part of this. That does not mean, however that all churches handle the issue of homosexuality insensitively, or that the evangelical church is not learning to adjust its outreach to those who have been traditionally maligned by the church. Most would agree that the Emergent church’s “conversation” about the issue of homosexuality does have a valid starting point. That, however, is the only valid part of their theological discussion of homosexuality. While engaging in these “conversations” the Emergent church seems perfectly fine with rejecting Biblical authority if they feel that the current culture we live in views the issue differently than Scripture. Brian Maclaren points out his personal view on the issue of homosexuality and in it falls short of any opinion at all as he will “keep his ears tuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll spend another five years for ongoing reflection.” If there is any one statement that gives a definitive picture of the Emergent church view on Biblical authority, this could be it. Nowhere do we see Maclaren quote Scripture, refer to Scripture, or suggest that maybe the answer can be found in Scripture, instead he needs to lean on the authority of sciences, such as genetics and sociology rather than on the Bible. This departure from even entering Biblical authority into this conversation show just how far afield the Emergent church is from Biblical orthodoxy. Absolute Biblical truth is seemingly unattainable for the Emergent church in this area.
We have seen how the Emergent church view on Biblical authority impacts the view of the moral issue of homosexuality, and have found that the Emergent church view is lacking. What happens when we bring forth the issue of Biblical authority as it pertains to Soteriology? As with most discussions of doctrine and the Emergent church, we must concede at the outset that there are many different views throughout the Emergent church, but is hard to find one that seems to match up with Biblical truth. One opinion can be found in the words of N.T. Wright, an emergent church author. “ At the outset of the gospel narrative, the good news was not that Jesus was to die on the cross to forgive sins but that God had returned and all were invited to participate with him in this new way of life, in this redemption of the world”. In what seems like an over simplification and a clear sign that an understanding of Scripture is lacking, Tony Jones states:
A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent; a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure on the other; the chasm between us was labeled “sin”, and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergents ask, “What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God.”
Another Emergent church leader Doug Pagitt question the total depravity of man in his denial that “human beings are inherently depraved and broken and that’s why our prefect God cannot be in a relationship until we are all fixed up.” Not only are, Wright, Jones and Pagitt completely ignorant of Biblical authority regarding the issue of Salvation, they have a very feeble understanding of the nature of God. One begins to see a pattern when looking closely at these issues in the Emergent church, and it is not one that engenders any hope that solid theological footing will be found in the Emergent “conversation.” In an extension of this view, Spencer Burke, proposes that grace is “not conditional on recognizing or renouncing sin but it comes to us whether or not we ask for it. We do not have to do anything to receive it. It simply comes.” Interestingly enough the rationale behind this pervious statement is that “grace just doesn’t resonate in our culture anymore”. Once again we see culture at the wheel of the Emerging church belief system, with Biblical authority taking a backseat or an absent role. As a continuation of the discussion about Salvation, it is important that we point out that a large portion of the Emergent church does not believe that the death of Christ was a substitution for our sin. In fact, the thought of Jesus dying on the cross presents a bitter picture for many emergents, as it paints for them a picture of a vengeful, bloodthirsty and judgmental God. In a continued departure from Biblical orthodoxy, the emergent church takes on a Universalist posture when it comes to individual salvation. Emergent church thinkers such as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor assert that salvation is some kind of program that we have to “opt” out of it if we don’t want to be a part of it. It is present in all of us and we have to do nothing, say nothing or decide nothing in order to access it. This is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching, and leads us into the next area where the Emergent “conversation” seems to ignore orthodoxy when it comes to defining the kingdom of God.
The Emergent church, as has been repeated consistently throughout this paper, seems more focused on tearing down than building, and this is no different in their attack on the orthodox view of the kingdom of God. According to the Emergent church,” the kingdom of God is not atonement for sin, salvation, church, future, Heaven after death, or even Christianity itself.” In what is a relief for this author, we can finally see a small bit of clarity as to where the passion of the Emergent church lies. It is in proposing the concept of Heaven on earth. In its definition of the kingdom of God, we see that Emergent church leaders typically agree that the kingdom of God is already present here on earth. Leaders such as Brian Maclaren claim that modern evangelicals propose that the kingdom of Heaven is only a future proposition. The Emergent church, in a departure from form, actually use biblical text, (although it is misused) in quoting that the biblical statement that the kingdom of God is “at hand” means that the kingdom of God is present on the earth at this time. Emergent leader, Rob Bell, takes this concept even further in stating that “poverty, injustice, suffering-they are all hells one earth, and as Christians we oppose them with all our energies”. These are all laudable actions, but for the Emergent church, these actions comprise a kind of collective salvation and negate the discussion or even necessity of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus. This gives us great insight into what seems to be the primary passion and focus of the Emergent church, which is the idea that the means and road to salvation is to change the world around us. In what may be the biggest misunderstanding, or maybe intentional ignorance on the part of the Emergent church, is the belief that emulating the life of Jesus is implementing the kingdom of God on earth. This statement, once again, seems inarguable, as you would find a majority of orthodox Christians that would say that our responsibility is to emulate Christ on earth. In reality, however, it is in dealing with the life and work of Christ that the Emergent church finds its misguided focus, and through which it has the capacity for the greatest harm.
Brian Maclaren claims that the Jesus that orthodox evangelicals have in mind brings us to a grim resignation: “the world will get worse and worse, and finally the jihadist Jesus will return to use force, domination, violence and even torture-the ultimate imperial tools-to vanquish evil and bring peace.” Instead of this Apocalyptic Jesus, Maclaren posits that we emulate the Jesus that was a social reformer, healer, and who reached out to the lowest in society. These are things that you may hear in any given evangelical church across America, but they might differ from Maclaren in his belief that in doing so we can usher in the kingdom of Heaven. This earning of the kingdom of Heaven not only misunderstands what the kingdom of Heaven actually is; it places God in the position of needing our help to accomplish this task. The Bible makes it very clear in John 4: 16 that Jesus is the Way the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me. This runs contrary to the Emergent church idea that the way to the kingdom of God is far more concerned with effecting social change than it is with individual belief in the regenerative power of Jesus. It is precisely in this area that the Emergent church makes the inroads into modern culture and as we will see in the next section, this is the biggest draw that the church holds for the modern seeker. In a day and age where cultural relativism seems to permeate even many evangelical congregations, we see a dominant role for it in the Emergent church. This is evidenced in the primary focus on community and social change that has been an effective marketing tool for the Emergent church.
With chapter titles such as The American Empire, The Force of War, The Suicidal Logic of the War Business, and Capitalism as God, one might become confused that the Maclaren Book, Everything Must Change is more of a sociological treatise than it is a book promoting a system of religious beliefs. This is not uncommon for the Emergent church, as the majority of their “kingdom building” exercises seem to coincide completely with what would be considered the agenda of the American political left. This is one of the weaknesses as pointed out by Kevin De Young in the book Why We Are Not Emergent. “Without the personal glory of Jesus Christ and his redeeming work front and center in the gospel, the kingdom of God often ends up sounding largely political”. It is undeniable that left wing politics is a common thread running throughout the emergent literature. While the belief and following of any particular political agenda is not a component of Christianity, one would wonder why the Emergent church constantly lands on the liberal side of moral questions such as homosexual rights, abortion, anti-Americanism, environmental spirituality and any other political causes that are in vogue. Granted, each and every person has the right to follow their heart, but one begins to wonder when these battles for liberalism are credited as working toward the kingdom of God, and if the Bible even plays a role in these decisions for the Emergent church. If it plays any role at all, we can be sure that it is only a minor contributor to these “conversations”, that the Emergent church engages in and that the prognosis for finding Biblical truth in Emergent church doctrine may be as likely as finding it in a myriad of other world religions.
It is the hope of the author that this essay has given some insight regarding the vast divide between Christian orthodoxy and the Emergent church, especially in the areas of Biblical inerrancy, absolute truth and the nature of Salvation. It was the authors’ intention to go through a step-by-step, topic-by-topic comparison of doctrinal elements of the Emergent church and orthodox Christianity, but after some studying of Emergent church texts, it became very difficult to grasp on to any concrete beliefs that could be refuted. In fact, this study took on a different form than anticipated in that it became more of an investigation into a cult ideology than the study of a slightly misled branch of orthodoxy. The process actually became upsetting at some point as a result of the blatant rejection or misuse of Biblical texts to meet a cultural standard of being “in tune”. In some ways, it would have been better to engage in an Apologetics study of Islam or Taoism, as they at least ascribe to their own version of truth, and if they prescribe to the idea of “conversations” as the Emergent church does, at least they both have had thousands of years to figure it out. One gets the impression that with the Emergent church, even a thousand years would not be long enough to draw their “conversation” back to Biblical truth.
Beware of counterfeiting the love of God by following your own natural human emotions, sympathies, or understandings. That will only serve to revile and abuse the true love of God. - Oswald Chambers
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, Travis I., and Nicholas E. Toews. 2010. “The Emergent Church: a Methodological Critique.” Direction 39, no. 1: 32-40.
Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan), 2005.
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 1996.
Conder, Tim. The Journey of Existing Churches into the Emerging Culture (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 2006.
Driscoll, M.” A pastoral perspective on the Emergent Church.” Criswell Theological Review [serial online]. March 1, 2006; (2): 87-93.
Driscoll, M. “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway.” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, 4; 2008.
Emergent Village. “Values and Practices.” emergentvillage.org/?page_id=77 [accessed Feb 11, 2012.
MacArthur, John. “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emergent Approach”. The Masters Seminary Journal 17/2 ,141-158. (Fall 2006).
Maclaren, Brian D. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope. (Nashville :Thomas Nelson), 2007.
Maclaren, Brian D. Interviewed by unknown. www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000154.html [accessed Feb 11, 2012]
Mclaughlin, Brian. “The Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, No. 3 pp 101-118 (Fall 2008).
Pagitt, Doug & Jones, Tony The Emergent Manifesto of Hope. (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2007.
Pettegrew, Larry D. “Evangelism, Paradigms, and the Emerging Church”. The Masters Seminary Journal. 17/2: 159-175. (Fall 2006)
“Seeds of doubt.” Christian Century 126, no. 11: 20-22.
Smith, R. Scott. Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Crossway Books: Wheaton, IL) 2005.
Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2008.
Wittmer, Michael. “ Don’t Stop Believing: A Theological Critique of the Emergent Church”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 119-131.
What has been done will be done again.
There is nothing new under the sun.- Eccl 1:9
From the 2nd century heresies of Marcion, to the liberal theology of the social gospel nearly 1800 years later, we find that theological events have proven out the writers’ words over and over again. Our current world is no exception to this statement. Although the Emergent church may not be as doctrinally abrasive as Marcion, this may be only because the Emergent church is far more timid in espousing any theological positions, not that the Emergent church is any more theologically sound. In 2 Peter 2: 1 we are not warned of heretical doctrines that are so far a field that it does not require much discernment to figure out their fallacy, we are warned instead, of the “secret bringing of destructive heresies”. This seems to be the bent of the Emergent Church. They have taken the seed of deconstruction, covered it in the language of Jesus, and sprinkled it with cultural relativism to create a hybrid creature that has no seeming theological direction, either forward or backward. It is exactly the nebulous and nefarious nature of the Emergent church that prompts our need for clarity. It is this authors’ hope that this clarity will be found in this brief essay as we expose how the deconstructionist mindset of the Emergent church undermines the concepts of Biblical inerrancy, the existence of absolute Biblical truth, and the nature of Salvation.
As with most theological studies, we must first find our terminological bearings. The term emergent may be something a new term, and it is certainly one that has been thrown around with dozens of different meanings attached to it. The fact that the Emergent church and its leaders seem reluctant at best or evasive at worst when asked about their theological foundations does not make the job of definition any easier, but a contrast between the terms emergent and Emergent church should give us enough clarity to make sense of this paper. The distinction between the emergent movement and the Emergent church is best summed up by Mark Devine, as he splits the emergent camps into 2 categories. “There is the doctrinally friendly (emergent) camp, and there is the doctrinally averse (Emergent Church) camp.” We do not have any theological issues with the emergent camp as it keeps orthodox theology intact while seeking to reach the world for Christ where the world is at. The emergent movement in general does not feel the need to discard centuries of Biblically based orthodoxy. The Emergent church, however, presents us with enough theological deficiencies that a thorough study of its beliefs, particularly in relation to Biblical inerrancy and authority is not only important, but is an absolute necessity. This study and defining of the Emergent church is not an easy task, however. The Emergent church has tried its very best to shy away from any centralized power when it comes to organizational structure, which in and of itself seems incongruous as their are obviously individuals such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Phyllis Tickle, and Brian Maclaren who have made careers of promoting literature, websites, conferences and educational institutions that espouse their deconstructionist mindset. To the untrained eye, this seems more of a way to maintain theological mobility rather than a lack of a corporately shared ideology. These individuals certainly agree on many points and appear at the same conferences and speak the same terminology, so one could rightfully question why they fight so much against being centrally organized. That being said, there is a diversity of opinions about a variety of issues amongst these individuals, but the uniquely binding factor between these leaders and the Emergent church movement is that Biblical relevance and inerrancy is sacrificed at the altar of cultural relativism.
The first step that many of these leaders take in the journey toward discounting Biblical authority is the same one that Marcion proposed nearly 2000 years ago, that the Old Testament offers us nothing that is usable as far as teaching, rebuking, correcting or training in righteousness. (1 Tim 3:16) In fact, the primary focus of Emergent church leaders is the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, with the exception that the culminating death of Jesus has no bearing on Salvation. Even this focus on the gospel has been molded to fit the beliefs of Emergent church leaders such as Brian Maclaren who warns that Jesus did not mean in John 14:6 that “I am in the way of people seeking truth and life”. Maclaren goes on to say that “ this path is not about competing with other faith traditions. It’s about living a way of grace, love, forgiveness and peace.” This sounds like a perfectly acceptable description of the life of Jesus and the lessons that we are to take from that life, but what it does not seem to explain effectively is the purpose for that life. If we needed someone to give us an example of grace, love, forgiveness and peace, then it did not necessarily need to be one who was perfect or even one who was God, for that matter. The orthodox Christian cannot help but be concerned about the door holding Universalism at bay being blown wide open, and left hanging on weakened hinges. This is a recurring practice throughout much of the Emergent literature. In their attempt to pursue cultural relativism and in their efforts to be inclusive, the Emergent church takes a hard stand against taking a hard stand, which in and of itself seems incongruent, but it is their widely held practice, nonetheless. When asked about finding a theological center, Emergent church leader Tony Jones responded, “statements of faith are about drawing borders, which means you have to load you weapons and place soldiers at those borders. It becomes an obsession-guarding the borders. Statements of faith don’t invite people into the kingdom. They are a modernistic endeavor that I am not the least bit interested in.” This is a continuing theme, and it proposes that no absolutes be adhered to, rather it proposes that each experience dictates truth. This is contrary to the word of God where the concept of truth is not ambiguous and is embodied in Jesus.
It seems that Jones, Maclaren, Bell, and many of the other Emergent church “thinkers” engage in the cognitive distortion of All or Nothing thinking as a foundational principle for nearly all of their decisions regarding the Emergent church. It begins with the very formation of the Emergent church and continues all the way to the treatments of Eschatology, Soteriology and Christology. The Emergent church seems adamant that there is no middle ground between a church that is reaching out to culture and one that is orthodox in their beliefs. In fact Brian Maclaren brings a charge that “the failing of modern Christianity is that it has specialized in dealing with “spiritual needs” to the exclusion of physical and social needs.” If there were a point where one were to begin to consider terms such as heretical, it would be very close at hand. It is also a faulty conclusion to state that the modern church is not interested in community outreach, and a shaky foundation for discarding what are some of the most vital tenants of the Christian faith. Even if we were to admit that there are not orthodox evangelical churches out there, reaching out to their communities, what would be the explanation for the doctrine friendly emergent church? As we can see in the evidence of the doctrine friendly emergent church, it is indeed possible to maintain a sound theological base while engaging the world and community around you. Why then does the Emergent church feel that this task is impossible? Does taking a stand on doctrine preclude you from reaching out to the community, or is it just distasteful to take a stand? This is one of the most glaring issues that can be found in a study of the Emergent church. The only area where absolute truth seems to exist is in the fact that the modern evangelical church has failed, and that a massive deconstruction needs to take place. It seems as if even the leaders of the Emergent church do not know where this might lead, and this is often a point of pride for those who are in leadership within the movement. This lack of doctrinal direction has been eschewed for a “conversation” about theology. This “conversation” is a large part of the Emergent church and in the arena of theology seems to take preeminence over any theological fact. In fact, it seems to be a point of pride as is evidenced by Brian Maclaren in A Generous Orthodoxy.
A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.
Maclaren continues to propose that “our understanding of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted...and we must continually rediscover the gospel.” In what seems to be a sharp departure from any professed spiritual thinker, Maclaren suggests that nothing can be known, but that everything must be talked about. What exactly this “conversation” that is proposed by the Emergent church is supposed to accomplish is still unknown, as the Emergent Village movement is over 10 years old, and amongst all of that conversing, the leaders of the movement have still not reached solid footing regarding any spiritual issue but the unknowability of spiritual absolutes. “The danger that this viewpoint poses for the role of Christianity is an imminent one, and it poses an even larger risk to the survival of the Emergent church, as it has already proven that when these “conversations” reach different conclusions, then it has splintered into smaller groups and without some theological unity, this movement faces extinction.” This might not be a lamentable outcome for Christian orthodoxy, but one must wonder how many souls will accompany this movement into oblivion if this were to happen.
The unknowable nature of Christian doctrine according to the Emergent church calls into question the clarity of Scripture, and as Scripture is an extension of the power of God, it call into questions God’s omnipotence and questions God’s nature. “The person and work of God are everywhere interrelated in Scripture, so much that whatever is true about the character of God is true about the nature of God’s Word. Thus, to deny the clarity of Scripture is to call into question God’s ability to communicate clearly.” This leads to a whole myriad of Biblical issues that the Emergent church refuses to take a stand on, and continues to subject Biblical authority to human “conversation” in order to determine truth and relevance. We will see in the next section some specific areas of Biblical truth where the Emergent church seems to act outside the realm of Biblical truth. One of these areas where the Emergent church has taken its leave from orthodox Christianity is in the area of Biblical interpretation regarding homosexuality. Tony Jones, one of the founding members of the Emergent church movement explains what conclusions he reached regarding this issue. Jones “now believes that gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and queers can live lives in accordance with Biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can) and that their monogamy can and should be blessed by the church and state.” Jones is not alone in his acceptance that the GLBTQ lifestyle should be blessed by the church, and this seems to be a recurrent theme and a major attractant for the Emergent church. Once again, the Emergent church rightfully points out what has been a traditional failing of the orthodox evangelical church, but proposes that the means by which to remedy this shortcoming is to do away with any moral absolutes. If you were to enter a church and take a poll of individuals who had been in a congregation where homosexuality was not only preached against, but those who engaged in it were reviled, it would not be long before you found some who had seen this or been a part of this. That does not mean, however that all churches handle the issue of homosexuality insensitively, or that the evangelical church is not learning to adjust its outreach to those who have been traditionally maligned by the church. Most would agree that the Emergent church’s “conversation” about the issue of homosexuality does have a valid starting point. That, however, is the only valid part of their theological discussion of homosexuality. While engaging in these “conversations” the Emergent church seems perfectly fine with rejecting Biblical authority if they feel that the current culture we live in views the issue differently than Scripture. Brian Maclaren points out his personal view on the issue of homosexuality and in it falls short of any opinion at all as he will “keep his ears tuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll spend another five years for ongoing reflection.” If there is any one statement that gives a definitive picture of the Emergent church view on Biblical authority, this could be it. Nowhere do we see Maclaren quote Scripture, refer to Scripture, or suggest that maybe the answer can be found in Scripture, instead he needs to lean on the authority of sciences, such as genetics and sociology rather than on the Bible. This departure from even entering Biblical authority into this conversation show just how far afield the Emergent church is from Biblical orthodoxy. Absolute Biblical truth is seemingly unattainable for the Emergent church in this area.
We have seen how the Emergent church view on Biblical authority impacts the view of the moral issue of homosexuality, and have found that the Emergent church view is lacking. What happens when we bring forth the issue of Biblical authority as it pertains to Soteriology? As with most discussions of doctrine and the Emergent church, we must concede at the outset that there are many different views throughout the Emergent church, but is hard to find one that seems to match up with Biblical truth. One opinion can be found in the words of N.T. Wright, an emergent church author. “ At the outset of the gospel narrative, the good news was not that Jesus was to die on the cross to forgive sins but that God had returned and all were invited to participate with him in this new way of life, in this redemption of the world”. In what seems like an over simplification and a clear sign that an understanding of Scripture is lacking, Tony Jones states:
A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent; a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure on the other; the chasm between us was labeled “sin”, and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergents ask, “What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God.”
Another Emergent church leader Doug Pagitt question the total depravity of man in his denial that “human beings are inherently depraved and broken and that’s why our prefect God cannot be in a relationship until we are all fixed up.” Not only are, Wright, Jones and Pagitt completely ignorant of Biblical authority regarding the issue of Salvation, they have a very feeble understanding of the nature of God. One begins to see a pattern when looking closely at these issues in the Emergent church, and it is not one that engenders any hope that solid theological footing will be found in the Emergent “conversation.” In an extension of this view, Spencer Burke, proposes that grace is “not conditional on recognizing or renouncing sin but it comes to us whether or not we ask for it. We do not have to do anything to receive it. It simply comes.” Interestingly enough the rationale behind this pervious statement is that “grace just doesn’t resonate in our culture anymore”. Once again we see culture at the wheel of the Emerging church belief system, with Biblical authority taking a backseat or an absent role. As a continuation of the discussion about Salvation, it is important that we point out that a large portion of the Emergent church does not believe that the death of Christ was a substitution for our sin. In fact, the thought of Jesus dying on the cross presents a bitter picture for many emergents, as it paints for them a picture of a vengeful, bloodthirsty and judgmental God. In a continued departure from Biblical orthodoxy, the emergent church takes on a Universalist posture when it comes to individual salvation. Emergent church thinkers such as Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor assert that salvation is some kind of program that we have to “opt” out of it if we don’t want to be a part of it. It is present in all of us and we have to do nothing, say nothing or decide nothing in order to access it. This is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching, and leads us into the next area where the Emergent “conversation” seems to ignore orthodoxy when it comes to defining the kingdom of God.
The Emergent church, as has been repeated consistently throughout this paper, seems more focused on tearing down than building, and this is no different in their attack on the orthodox view of the kingdom of God. According to the Emergent church,” the kingdom of God is not atonement for sin, salvation, church, future, Heaven after death, or even Christianity itself.” In what is a relief for this author, we can finally see a small bit of clarity as to where the passion of the Emergent church lies. It is in proposing the concept of Heaven on earth. In its definition of the kingdom of God, we see that Emergent church leaders typically agree that the kingdom of God is already present here on earth. Leaders such as Brian Maclaren claim that modern evangelicals propose that the kingdom of Heaven is only a future proposition. The Emergent church, in a departure from form, actually use biblical text, (although it is misused) in quoting that the biblical statement that the kingdom of God is “at hand” means that the kingdom of God is present on the earth at this time. Emergent leader, Rob Bell, takes this concept even further in stating that “poverty, injustice, suffering-they are all hells one earth, and as Christians we oppose them with all our energies”. These are all laudable actions, but for the Emergent church, these actions comprise a kind of collective salvation and negate the discussion or even necessity of the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus. This gives us great insight into what seems to be the primary passion and focus of the Emergent church, which is the idea that the means and road to salvation is to change the world around us. In what may be the biggest misunderstanding, or maybe intentional ignorance on the part of the Emergent church, is the belief that emulating the life of Jesus is implementing the kingdom of God on earth. This statement, once again, seems inarguable, as you would find a majority of orthodox Christians that would say that our responsibility is to emulate Christ on earth. In reality, however, it is in dealing with the life and work of Christ that the Emergent church finds its misguided focus, and through which it has the capacity for the greatest harm.
Brian Maclaren claims that the Jesus that orthodox evangelicals have in mind brings us to a grim resignation: “the world will get worse and worse, and finally the jihadist Jesus will return to use force, domination, violence and even torture-the ultimate imperial tools-to vanquish evil and bring peace.” Instead of this Apocalyptic Jesus, Maclaren posits that we emulate the Jesus that was a social reformer, healer, and who reached out to the lowest in society. These are things that you may hear in any given evangelical church across America, but they might differ from Maclaren in his belief that in doing so we can usher in the kingdom of Heaven. This earning of the kingdom of Heaven not only misunderstands what the kingdom of Heaven actually is; it places God in the position of needing our help to accomplish this task. The Bible makes it very clear in John 4: 16 that Jesus is the Way the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me. This runs contrary to the Emergent church idea that the way to the kingdom of God is far more concerned with effecting social change than it is with individual belief in the regenerative power of Jesus. It is precisely in this area that the Emergent church makes the inroads into modern culture and as we will see in the next section, this is the biggest draw that the church holds for the modern seeker. In a day and age where cultural relativism seems to permeate even many evangelical congregations, we see a dominant role for it in the Emergent church. This is evidenced in the primary focus on community and social change that has been an effective marketing tool for the Emergent church.
With chapter titles such as The American Empire, The Force of War, The Suicidal Logic of the War Business, and Capitalism as God, one might become confused that the Maclaren Book, Everything Must Change is more of a sociological treatise than it is a book promoting a system of religious beliefs. This is not uncommon for the Emergent church, as the majority of their “kingdom building” exercises seem to coincide completely with what would be considered the agenda of the American political left. This is one of the weaknesses as pointed out by Kevin De Young in the book Why We Are Not Emergent. “Without the personal glory of Jesus Christ and his redeeming work front and center in the gospel, the kingdom of God often ends up sounding largely political”. It is undeniable that left wing politics is a common thread running throughout the emergent literature. While the belief and following of any particular political agenda is not a component of Christianity, one would wonder why the Emergent church constantly lands on the liberal side of moral questions such as homosexual rights, abortion, anti-Americanism, environmental spirituality and any other political causes that are in vogue. Granted, each and every person has the right to follow their heart, but one begins to wonder when these battles for liberalism are credited as working toward the kingdom of God, and if the Bible even plays a role in these decisions for the Emergent church. If it plays any role at all, we can be sure that it is only a minor contributor to these “conversations”, that the Emergent church engages in and that the prognosis for finding Biblical truth in Emergent church doctrine may be as likely as finding it in a myriad of other world religions.
It is the hope of the author that this essay has given some insight regarding the vast divide between Christian orthodoxy and the Emergent church, especially in the areas of Biblical inerrancy, absolute truth and the nature of Salvation. It was the authors’ intention to go through a step-by-step, topic-by-topic comparison of doctrinal elements of the Emergent church and orthodox Christianity, but after some studying of Emergent church texts, it became very difficult to grasp on to any concrete beliefs that could be refuted. In fact, this study took on a different form than anticipated in that it became more of an investigation into a cult ideology than the study of a slightly misled branch of orthodoxy. The process actually became upsetting at some point as a result of the blatant rejection or misuse of Biblical texts to meet a cultural standard of being “in tune”. In some ways, it would have been better to engage in an Apologetics study of Islam or Taoism, as they at least ascribe to their own version of truth, and if they prescribe to the idea of “conversations” as the Emergent church does, at least they both have had thousands of years to figure it out. One gets the impression that with the Emergent church, even a thousand years would not be long enough to draw their “conversation” back to Biblical truth.
Beware of counterfeiting the love of God by following your own natural human emotions, sympathies, or understandings. That will only serve to revile and abuse the true love of God. - Oswald Chambers
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, Travis I., and Nicholas E. Toews. 2010. “The Emergent Church: a Methodological Critique.” Direction 39, no. 1: 32-40.
Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan), 2005.
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 1996.
Conder, Tim. The Journey of Existing Churches into the Emerging Culture (Zondervan:Grand Rapids) 2006.
Driscoll, M.” A pastoral perspective on the Emergent Church.” Criswell Theological Review [serial online]. March 1, 2006; (2): 87-93.
Driscoll, M. “Navigating the Emerging Church Highway.” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, 4; 2008.
Emergent Village. “Values and Practices.” emergentvillage.org/?page_id=77 [accessed Feb 11, 2012.
MacArthur, John. “Perspicuity of Scripture: The Emergent Approach”. The Masters Seminary Journal 17/2 ,141-158. (Fall 2006).
Maclaren, Brian D. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope. (Nashville :Thomas Nelson), 2007.
Maclaren, Brian D. Interviewed by unknown. www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000154.html [accessed Feb 11, 2012]
Mclaughlin, Brian. “The Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, No. 3 pp 101-118 (Fall 2008).
Pagitt, Doug & Jones, Tony The Emergent Manifesto of Hope. (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2007.
Pettegrew, Larry D. “Evangelism, Paradigms, and the Emerging Church”. The Masters Seminary Journal. 17/2: 159-175. (Fall 2006)
“Seeds of doubt.” Christian Century 126, no. 11: 20-22.
Smith, R. Scott. Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Crossway Books: Wheaton, IL) 2005.
Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why (Baker Books: Grand Rapids) 2008.
Wittmer, Michael. “ Don’t Stop Believing: A Theological Critique of the Emergent Church”. Reformed Review: A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary. Vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 119-131.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
March On!!!
As i thumbed through the Children's Bible that we try to read to our boys at night, one of the stories that I saw prompted a song that many of us who were raised in the church may well know. The song is "Joshua won the battle of Jericho". As is typical in my brain, I immediately question the verity of this song. Did Joshua really win the battle? I know it may seem silly to question the absolute Biblical accuracy of a Sunday School song, and for those supporters of that song, my argument is not with you or with the song. What strikes me from that story is that tens of thousands of Israelites believed enough in their God that after spending 40 years wandering the desert, they still chose to walk around a city that was about one mile around thirteen times. Imagine the mockery they received from the citizens of Jericho. I imagine a little dragging of the feet and grumbling as the people of Israel entered day seven and realized that they had to not only walk around the city 7 times, but they had to scream and shout like fools at the end of their 7 mile journey. Talk about faith. At times in my life, I confess that my faith pales in comparison to the children of Israel. Maybe I am skipping all of the marching and trying to go straight to the trumpet blowing, hoping that God will move miraculously and cause the walls of sin, unemployment, anger, resentment, selfishness, and depression to crumble around me, giving me victory. There is no doubt that God can and does work in this way, but for me, something is missing from this equation. Where is my role being played out. Am I seeking truth? Am I searching for the right path? Am I immersing myself in what is God's? Am I marching around the walls, doing my best to remain within the will of God? I am much better at dragging my feet in the dusty desert, wondering when things will change. Maybe it is time for me to get my March on! Maybe it is time to make a tangible move toward the things of God. Take a positive lesson lesson from the children of Israel and march on, good soldier, march on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)