Don't Abandon the Emerging Church

The Conservative Voice is speaking: Postmodern Antiquity: “Emerging Church” Claims Pre-Modern Roots

The final paragraph...

Fortunately, the movement has not yet taken definite shape. We can make it what we want it to be. True believers, I challenge you not to abandon the emerging church, but to seize the reigns of power and guide it toward God; and if we would do so, we must act now, while the anti-Christian liberals are still tolerant of our presence.

Comments

[Tim]

Amen. There is good stuff in the EC. Baby. Bathwater.

[Mike Wood]

Steve,

You seem to be on the "right" side of the EC, but being in the EC conversation at all does tie you to guys like Adam Cleveland over at pomomusings. He's a progressive Christian who denies much or most of what you hold dear, I think. But he has you blogrolled.

You can't both win, and the most visible leaders of the EC (McLaren, even Andrew Jones) seem to be on his side.

Comments?

Mike

[Steve McCoy]

In the sense that I can't win because many evangelicals are so judgmental that any association of any sort is deemed heresy, you are right. :)

I'm happy to associate, on some level, with anyone calling himself/herself a Christian. In a greater sense with someone who seems to share a greater level of beliefs. And so on. Bottom line: I guess I would rather fail in terms of including more with me rather than less.

My question is, Why are we evangelicals in such a hurry to find enough fault to abandon those who are struggling with core beliefs?

On top of that, I believe emergings and progressives and the rest of us are still moving toward something beyond and better than the instutionalized church. And Adam and others like McLaren that I don't always agree with are after the same things as best as I can tell. Maybe if we stay in the same conversation, most of us will find our way to the right stuff eventually.

Thanks for the questions Mike.

[Caleb]

McLaren (along with guys like Len Sweet and Thom Wolf) started out as a modern Christian who warned other modern Christians about the coming worldview change (postmodernism) and that the church would need to change in order to survive it. It worked great, because he "spoke" both cultural languages. But over time, out of personal growth or frustration or something, he became less and less modern himself, and now he is fluent only in postmodern.

So we have this huge audience of modern christians reading and critiquing his books by modern standards ("If he doesn't believe in a literal hell, he shouldn't be teaching" or "either he communicated it poorly or he's a heretic"). As much as McLaren (and I) hate it, they need labels and definitions in order to be able to participate in the discussion. This is why it's now referred to as a "movement," and McLaren as the leader. I like McLaren, but I'm thinking we need to hear from some new translators in order to continue the conversation.

Oh, and when I read that the Conservative Post guy wrote "...seize the reigns of power and guide it toward God," I really laughed. Seize the power!

[Steve McCoy]

Haha. That's a great line, eh? I thought the same thing Caleb.

[Mike Wood]

Good to hear back from you, Steve.

I understand your sentiment, and if I had to err on the side of inclusion or exclusion, Jesus' desire that all Christians be one would cause me to err on the same side you are. =)

But I have to argue that you are indeed erring, and because you link to Piper and Dever, Sproul and Horton, I'm going to have to assume that you're on the same presuppositional (even inerrantist?) page as I am.

This is why I am wary of linking at all to Adam Cleveland and to McLaren, and even looking for error in the EC: "Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom 16:17 ESV).

Can I ask you, Steve--Are not McLaren and Cleveland and the others on the left side of the EC preaching a different doctrine from that of Paul, a different and denuded gospel? I've been reading their stuff for months now, and that's the conclusion I've come to. I have a duty to mark and avoid them, to separate from them in an ecclesiastical sense even as I lovingly appeal to them to believe the biblical gospel. That's what I've been doing with Cleve, though I admit it's hard to appear loving when you disagree over eternity.

The Bible, as best I can tell, doesn't tell me to ally myself with those who deny Paul's doctrine in hopes that we'll both arrive at a better place. Instead, I am to withdraw myself from anyone who leads a disorderly life not according to apostolic teaching (2 Ths 3:6).

Mike

[Steve McCoy]

Mike, if you have come here to judge me without knowing me (and you don't), I would kindly ask you to leave. I have plenty of very good pastors and theologians who I am accountable to, and they know me much better than you.

Jesus seems to love the unity of the church, even with those in error. Paul had harsh words for the Galatian church, but he still treated them like the church.

I believe the emerging church is a conversation, not a movement (though it's headed there). It's incredibly diverse. Eventually, IMHO, it will splinter and lines will be clearer. For now, b/c it's a conversation, I believe we can talk with one another, learn, disagree, agree, dream, and so on...and it's good.

By the way, I have expressed my disagreement with McLaren and others from time to time. I have no problem disagreeing.

Mike, which books have you read by EC writers? Thanks.

[Mike]

Steve... I am honestly sorry. I didn't mean to up the emotional stakes so soon. Give me a chance, too, to take part in the conversation.

The book I've spent the most time in is A New Kind of Christian, with some time in A Generous Orthodoxy and a lot of blog surfing and reading through Group magazine (Youth Specialties). I've read sample chapters and articles all over. Really, what would you recommend based on what appears to be my view of the EC?

Perhaps exegesis can follow after I've read up to your satisfaction, and I have to admit that I feel deficient in that area. My book money goes to exegetical commentaries and not to books on Emergent. But when my library's fiscal year ends in a few weeks I'm hoping to get into the Out of Bounds Church, followed by whatever suggests itself as helpful.

Mike

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for a thoughtful comment Mike. I'll try to respond later. Heading to teach our youth group.

[steven]

Mike,

I think that if you are looking to judge the emerging conversation/movement/churches, then a better way to do that is to actually spend time with them, share life with them, participate in missional living with them. Reading Brian's book or Adam's blog isn't really engaging with the emerging conversation in a meaningful way - especially when you have already decided that they are doctrinally wrong and you are right. So find a community of faith that is rethinking Gospel and Kingdom theologies (as opposed to just praxis) and enter their lives. Then judge.

Something that Steve seems to be leaning toward (and maybe is not quite comfortable yet saying fully) is that perhaps the first line of demarcation shouldn't be doctrinal. That is to say, for me, I have shifted my thinking from drawing "in" and "out" boundaries from primarily doctrinal questions to missional and communal questions. Now, it sounds from your comments that you define "in" and "out" based on certain doctrines. That's fine. But recognize that this might not be the only way to build community.

Finally are some in the ec "preaching a different doctrine from that of Paul, a different and denuded gospel"? I think the gospel that many in the ec preach is more powerful, more radical, and more life-altering that what I heard as a child and learned in my SBC seminary. It just isn't your version of Paul. Ever considered that perhaps the interpretation you hold so dearly isn't the only way of looking at the Gospel, the Kingdom, and life in the way of Jesus? As an ec pastor, I have a very high view of Scripture, of Paul, and especially of Jesus. And I can tell you that I will give my life for these things. But I won't give my life for one author's systematic theology.

[Mike Wood]

Steven (not Steve--though I got confused for a minute),

I'm very interested to hear whether Steve McCoy would agree with your assessment of his direction, especially concerning doctrinal boundaries.

Though this is only the question you'd expect, I have to ask it: Which mission shall we adopt, and around what shall we build our community?

Mike

P.S. And did I catch you right--we need to rethink the gospel? Wherein have we erred previously? Feel free to link me to the answer.

[Steve McCoy]

Mike, I suggest you read Mark Driscoll's Radical Reformission. He (his church, Mars Hill) is reaching emerging generations in truckloads - as John Armstrong said they are adding to the church daily like the early church.

I would also recommend something like The Search to Belong by Joe Myers. I highly recommend Scot McKnight's blog: Jesus Creed.

Now, for some reason there are a lot of evangelicals who love to go around accusing people who are in some way associated with the emerging church of horrible things. I'm happy to discuss the emerging church, but if you want to attack me without knowing me, I'm very happy to cut you off. Cool?

Good, so, here's my response to your previous comment. It's not an either/or on doctrine vs. missional/communal issues. I think both are important, very important. McLaren at least says he sees the same importance, though I think we would disagree on the extent and understanding of the doctrinal part.

I think Steven (my given name is Stephen, by the way) makes a very good point about the shift from thinking merely doctrinally to thinking missionally when drawing boundaries. I used to judge a church or Christian merely on doctrinal grounds. Yet Jesus said we will know them by their "fruit," wisdom is vindicated by "deeds." James says faith w/o works is dead.

So do I consider right doctrine important? Yes. Very much so. Do I consider right living important? Yes. Of course. But I know some Christians who have bad doctrine yet bear fruit, and some Christians who have good doctrine and seem to have no fruit. How should I think about these?

While I still have the same basic doctrinal beliefs I've had for some time, I have become less a judge of people and more an encourager. I would rather see someone with bad doctrine and encourage them to think rightly about the truth. I would rather see someone with bad fruit and encourage them to live what they say they believe. And this comes not because I have right doctrine and fruit and stand above them, but because I realize that for most of my Christian life I have been a judgmental hypocrite and not one who first seeks to love my brothers and sisters in Christ, even when they are in error.

[Mike Wood]

Steve (Stephen),

Good to hear back again. No, I don't want to be cut off. =) I especially don't want it to be my fault for having a bad spirit. I very much do want to show the fruit of the Spirit in my own life, including gentleness.

I have listened to a fair amount of Driscoll, though I, for one, wouldn't call him Emergent (and I hear tell that he wouldn't call himself that either http://www.kaleobill.com/archives/2005/03/conviction.php). Thanks for the recommendations. I believe I'll have some time this summer at my job to do some of that reading.

And I understand your wariness of evangelicals who like to go around accusing emergents of "horrible things." I feel the same about my own section of the Christian church.

I appreciate your willingness to look at the biblical texts I mentioned, Steve.

Hey, a family member is getting married tomorrow and I've got to go pick people up at the airport. I'll have to get to your posts and e-mail tomorrow.

Mike

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Mike.

[steven]

Mike,

A few responses:

I'm very interested to hear whether Steve McCoy would agree with your assessment of his direction, especially concerning doctrinal boundaries.

I guess it looks like the answer is "sort of." I'm usually pretty careful about defining other people's positions for them. Good to see that I wasn't too far off base.

Though this is only the question you'd expect, I have to ask it: Which mission shall we adopt, and around what shall we build our community?

Building the Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus. Again breaking my rule, I would guess that you could wholeheartedly agree with those answers. But I see building the Kingdom as more than getting people to "walk the aisle" and see the person of Jesus as more than a chapter in a systematic theology textbook. More on that...

P.S. And did I catch you right--we need to rethink the gospel? Wherein have we erred previously? Feel free to link me to the answer.

You heard correctly. Where have we erred? In my experience, the Gospel has been boiled down to a sin management theory based on the singular view of the atonement as penal substitution. That means that our evangelism (after all, "Gospel" and "evangelism" are the same word) is reduced to "how to get to heaven when you die." Of course, we include a seperate category called "discipleship" which waxes and wanes in popularity and emphasis, but if "discipleship" is living in the way of Jesus, then that too is the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus is "the Kingdom of God is at hand." Our error in understanding the Gospel has been in reducing the Kingdom to a future proposition - it is present and future. So our idea of the Good News has been focused on who is in and who is out of the future Kingdom and not on expanding the reign of God here and now. That's why we get a nationwide bus tour to promote "soul-winning" but not a peep about injustice, genocide, hunger, AIDS, etc. And if we practice mercy, it's simply a tool to make the recipient more receptive to our urging to pray the "Sinner's Prayer." This is already too long, but another avenue to explore in rethinking the Gospel is our insistance on one singular view of the Atonement - penal substitution. In my SBC systematic theology graduate class, we overviewed many other historical understandings of the Atonement before tossing them into the trash and holding onto this one view, because the others fail to grapple with many aspects of the Scriptural witness to the Atonement. The irony is that penal subsitution ignores the Scriptural basis for the other views... but that didn't matter, because it was "our" view, so it must be right even when dismissing a large chunk of Scripture!

Executive summary: the Gospel is bigger than we think. In involves what we do as well as what we believe. It also encompasses believing more than just one particular Reformation view of the Atonement, taking into account a 2000 year history of the Church and the breadth of Scripture.

Finally, you're correct in saying that Mark Driscoll no longer considers himself a part of the emerging conversation as it is currently manifested. Primarily because he uses a strict doctrinal basis for determining the "in" and "out." Re: Steve's recommendations, I thought Joe Myer's book has some major flaws and personally can't stand it (but maybe that's just me). And, McKnight's blog is really interesting - he's a self-identified ec "outsider" who has understood more of the emerging conversation than anyone I've come across. Maybe that's a good perspective to start with - someone looking in on the conversation and explaining it with good judgment, fine writing, and an open mind (backed by a long history of sound evangelical scholarship).

Congratulations to anyone who made it this far. Sorry for being so long winded! :)

[Steve McCoy]

Steven, I like Myers not because there aren't flaws, but b/c it's looking from a different direction at community, as with the front porch, etc.

[steven]

Well, I suppose that liking a bad book doesn't make you a bad person. ;)

I could say more, but I don't have any need to bash a guy's book here. There's good stuff in there to be sure. Glad you found it and found it useful.

[Steve McCoy]

And I suppose the fact that you don't like a decent book is something I can overlook. ;^)

Thanks for your comments steven.

[Mike Wood]

Steve,

Do you happen to know of an emergent church in South Carolina, like in the Greenville area?

Mike

[Steve McCoy]

Mike, not personally. But Relevant Magazine has a Church Network part of their site that allows churches to tell you where they are and more about them. Go here for Greenville.

That's the only place I would know to go for this kind of info, other than ask people I know.