Like Button

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Emergent Church

Scott, over at Christian Telegram started a little, friendly discussion (in comments) about "Emergent" theology ... right after a post on postmodernism. (The two concepts are linked.) I suspect, however, that "the Emergent Church" theology isn't very well known yet. Perhaps it ought to be.

According to Wikipedia, "Proponents of the emerging church embrace the reality of postmodernism and seek to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity in order to meaningfully engage with Western society which is pre-dominantly post-Christian." If that doesn't send off alarm bells in your head, perhaps you aren't paying attention.

First, "postmodernism" is all about "relative". The fundamental tenet of postmodernism is that all truth is relative and no truth is absolute. That is a problem when we have a God who claims to be absolute. Second, the phrase "deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity" ought to raise a serious problem. What went wrong with God's idea of Christianity? It worked in the past, but it doesn't work now? In what sense does biblical Christianity fail to "meaningfully engage with Western society"?

How does the Emergent Church movement go about deconstructing and reconstructing Christianity to make it more relevant to our society? Well, here are a few of their ideas.

- Missions are largely carried out by social activism. If you work to decrease poverty and meet people's felt needs, then you can better bring them to Christ.

- Theology isn't really important. It's better to share your personal narrative, your personal experience.

- Orthodoxy is generalized and ecumenical. Try not to make divisions over doctrine. Some encourage "dialogue with non-Christian religions and non-religious people." (One specifically listed who encourages this is Pastor Brian McLaren, the guy with whom I had some conversations earlier in my blog over the question of the poor. I wasn't aware of that at the time. He left saying, "This isn't the site for me." Is it that he encourages dialogue with non-Christian religions and non-religious people, but not so much with Christians who might disagree with his position?)

- The movement encourages a commitment to emulating Jesus' way of living, in particular his loving of God, neighbors and those normally considered enemies. (On the surface this would seem a good thing, but digging a little deeper, wasn't it changed hearts that Jesus was trying to obtain, not merely emulators?)

- The Bible is to be viewed with an open mind. There may be a plurality of interpretations, often determined by your own culture. This is contrasted with the primacy of the author's intent and cultural context.

One of the "beating drums" of this movement would be Schleiermacher's idea that "Experience unites; doctrine divides." This precisely plays into postmodernism. Truth isn't the issue; experience is. As such, how we experience God is of much higher importance than how we think of God. Everyone knows that these days. Make worship more "relevant". (Being in the presence of the Most High surrounded by other saints joining with the heavenly hosts to offer praise to God isn't really relevant if I don't feel warmly about it.) All that talk about "truth" and "the only way" is just alienating people. And "sin" ... that topic has to really be avoided. We don't want to hit that too hard at all because it just pushes people away. No, no, we need to conform more to the world's image. Our music should be more like theirs; our messages should be more appealing like theirs. We are competing with an entertainment glut and if we don't make it more experiential, well, it just won't work. At this point, truth is not the issue; survival is. So it's better if we just slough off the traditions of Scripture and the historical Church and work better in the direction of relevance and "feeling God".

Okay, I would say that from the churches around me that I see, I'm likely in a minority here, but I have a real problem with this type of approach. This "Emergent Church" concept is not merely sending off warning bells. I'm getting klaxons, flashing lights, and "Run, do not walk!" messages in my head. I'm seeing "vain philosophy, traditions of men, and elementary principles" (Col. 2:8) here and I am desperate to avoid captivity.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

HI Stan great post.
the thing that i dont understand is that after considering the number of areas that are being deconstructed within christianity by the post modernist, why bother with christianity at all? if you had an old car that could not perform at todays hiway speeds, you would simply discard the old car and buy a new one. so if historical christianity is so obsolete, why dont they simply creat a new religion. oh yes now i realize what is happening. you see to do such a thing would be tanamount to being antichristian, and we cant have that... it is amazing to watch how others want of convince us that truth does not exist,and yet they must use truth statements to convey their contradictions. please donot use the foundations of christ to support what is blatently antichrist.
bob

Stan said...

Yes! That's how it seems to me as well. Why toss out what is orthodox, biblically supported, and agreed upon for 2000 years, then revise it to "more current, relevant" settings and then call it "Christianity"?

To be fair, I suppose they think that, like Luther, they have it right now when the historic Christian Church had it wrong.

Jim Jordan said...

Hi stan
Great post. Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs has another expose on the Emergent heresy here including an eye-opening sermon by EC pastor Rob Bell.
I think whenever a group of Christians want to woo the culture the heresies grow. I see the Emergent's efforts to attract secular liberals and religious scientists under their tent resembles more the merging of paganism and Catholicism in the 4th Century. There is no Luther in that crowd - Luther was "held captive" by the Word.
We should speak out about this and show those who might be fooled by it how off course from the truth it really is. Take care.

Anonymous said...

I have considered this a few times today, before I wanted to comment. I don't agee with this. Yet, I know many of you are aware that I am often the one who is saying that I often believe God's truth is higher than we can fully comprehend until we are face to face with Jesus.

So I was contemplating if my beliefs are at all like postmodernism or the emergent church, just so as to keep my faith in check.

I don't believe truth is relative, though I do believe that often we think we have a full grasp of something when it reality it is higher than our human mind can fully comprehend. Yet, that does not make that truth relative. Jesus is the truth. He is absolute.

I am not sure where I stand on using "entertainment." I do know that surely should not be our focus though. And I have no interest in social club churches either. Where is the line? I am not into entertainment so as to speak, thus the reason I rarely watch TV or movies. What do you think? Where is the line on churches using entertainment?

Stan said...

Julianne,

"I don't agee with this."

Do you mean the post or the ideas of the Emergent Church?

"What do you think? Where is the line on churches using entertainment?"

I'm not sure on that one. It depends on the direction. I've often seen a youth group, for instance, use entertainment as means of attracting kids to an event at which they will then hear the Gospel. That's fine. But too many these days are using entertainment as part of worship. What has entertaining a congregation to do with praising God? This use of entertainment simply tells me they're not getting the point.

Church isn't about unbelievers. Believers are to "go into all the world". Believers are to take the Gospel wherever they go. But church is about building up the Body and glorifying God. Paul uses the phrase "equipping the saints". What part does entertainment play in equipping the saints? It may be useful in evangelism, but that's not the point of the church.

How is that for a bipolar answer?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I was unclear. I disagree with the ideas of the emergent church. I recalled hearing about Beth Moore doing the DVD for them along with other well known leaders that are not considered to be part of the emergent church so I went to read up on that again.

I ended up reading "tons" of posts last night about Chuck Smith's stance on it: Position of Calvary Chapel. He came out against it, which I guess his son Chuck Smith, Jr is part of that EC movement, so I am blessed Sr. still made the stand.

But then I read posts of people blasting Chuck Smith and saying he is the one who led the way for the emergent church. My older brother's pastor and church have a complete hatred of Chuck Smith and believe all kinds of things that just are not true about him and Calvary Chapel. So if I attend a Calvary Chapel, of course I cannot be saved!!!

On the other hand, I read a lot of people defending him and Calvary Chapel too. For me, I have been to wonderful Calvary Chapels and I have been to horrible Calvary Chapels. Same with other churches I have been to through my life. I have yet to name a denomination I can just across the board recommend to everybody.

I do know that I have read his writings and listened to Chuck Smith's teachings via radio and tape for years and that he definitely teaches the deity of Christ, the Trinity, a bodily ressurection of the saints, discipline for an unrepentant sinner, etc...which many there had pulled some quote of his out of context to blast him unjustly.

I can also say that Chuck himself will humbly admit that as he has matured in Christ over the years, some of his views have changed. I know that to be true for me as well.

One statement was made that does concern me, but not just for Calvary Chapels, but for so many people and churches in general. Pastor worship. I hear people go on and on about somebody being the greatest teacher, etc. It is okay to enjoy somebody, but what happens when a "great" pastor dies or leaves a congregation for some reason. Nobody can fill his shoes. And many fall away over it. Why?

So was the teacher their entertainer?

May I guard myself against the same and keep examining myself to see if I am indeed in the truth?

As for your stance on drawing the line, I agree. I think entertaining ourselves instead of worshipping God is indeed dangerous. When the service is supposed to be about how it makes me feel...there is problem! We are supposed to worship God and have our focus on Him. I do cry almost everytime I worship in Church, but not because the music is so emotional, but rather because I reflect on what Christ did on my behalf and I stand in awe as I worship Him. His love, mercy, and grace for me, makes me want to give Him everything I have and all that I am.

Blessings to you, Julianne

Traci Anerson said...

Yep. Emergents do not like "certainty"...therefore their theology is vague and not sound.

I hear they don't like to call themselves a church but a "conversation"...it's a conversation based on group-think and feelings.