Mohler and Emerging Church

While I was on vacation Al Mohler decided to put up two consecutive articles on the emerging church: part one and part two.  I think he was trying to slip them past me. :)  My responses are intended to be reflections on what I read, not a response to him or a rebuttal. 

As others have noted, Mohler spends most of his time rehashing much of Don Carson's book on the emerging church (ec).  That's fine, and much of what Carson says is helpful.  But in Mohler's articles, like in most anti-ec stuff, it comes down to what McLaren says vs. historic Christian doctrine.  That's a bit unfair.  There's room for a discussion on McLaren and doctrine, but let's just not imply that McLaren speaks for the ec.

I guess what I'm thinking is that for Mohler and Carson all their critique of the ec is based on their critique of postmodernism, as if the ec is about a wholesale commitment to being pomo.  I understand the idea of being ec as being aware of postmodernism in culture and communicating clearly in their vernacular.  I could be wrong, and am happy to discuss this.  I also know that not all ec'rs have the same convictions on this.

So Mohler will say things like...

By denying that truth is propositional, Emerging Church theorists avoid and renounce any responsibility to defend many of the doctrines long considered essential to the Christian faith.

I'm happy to admit that some in the ec have greatly downplayed propositions, but mostly in response to an evangelicalism that wrongly has made propositions the truest truth.  The Bible is the truest truth we have and proposition are a way of verbalizing theology as we study the truth.  More on propositions in a bit.

Mohler writes...

I am constantly confronted by young pastors who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement but deny that they associate themselves with the aberrant theological impulses and outright doctrinal denials that characterize the writings of the movement's most well-known and influential leaders.

I completely agree with D. A. Carson when he reflects: "I would feel much less worried about the directions being taken by other Emerging Church leaders if these leaders would rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says."

I think the issue is that Mohler and Carson take everyone sympathetic to the ec and make them McLarenites who must deny the heresies of their highly exalted leader.  Who says you can't be sympathetic to the ec and disagree with McLaren?  Mohler and Carson have worked hard to broadbrush here, but I just don't see it.  They want clean lines at all times dividing the good and bad, the true and false.  But the Reformation included some fuzzy boundaries for a while, didn't it?  We need to be aware that it's okay for things to be fuzzy for a while on some things (not all) for real change to happen.  And even Mohler admits that evangelicalism needs to look at changing.  More coming on that below.

Let me say that it would be nice to hear Mohler rejoice that some ec'rs are happy to reject what's wrong with some theology the ec.  Why not give these young leaders credit?  Why not be excited that there is evidence that bad theology isn't just being swallowed by ec'rs?  Why not see this as evidence that Mohler and Carson's determinations on the ec as this postmodern, truth-denying, proposition-denying, foundation-denying community is not exactly what they thought?  I would think this would make Mohler take a fresh look and wonder if his initial assessment of the ec is less than right on.

Mohler finishes the final post with....

The real question is this: will the future leaders of the Emerging Church acknowledge that, while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less? Will they come to affirm that a core of non-negotiable doctrines constitutes a necessary set of boundaries to authentic Christian faith? Will they embrace an understanding of Christianity that reforms the evangelical movement without denying its virtues?

This is the first thing Mohler has done that I know of where he actually seems to want an answer.  I hope that is his intention, because until now I think he has worked so hard to scold that he is losing any influence he had.  Here I think he is more helpful.  I think the questions are good.

At the same time, the tables must be turned. Will evangelicals be willing to direct hard and honest critical analysis at our own cultural embeddedness, intellectual faults, and organizational hubris?

Fantastic.  Finally the concerns of the ec are being addressed by one of the most eloquent spokesmen of the evangelical world.  With that, I think Mohler's articles deserve to be reread and reheard and reseen with a little more openness because he is taking the pointing finger of judgment and turning it at least a little bit inward on evangelicals. 

Shoot, more like this and we may actually get somewhere.  This is the best of Mohler we have on the ec to date.

Comments

[david rudd]

Steve,
i wonder if some of carson's (and apparently mohler's) methodology of linking ec to pomo is due to the early works of emergentYS? a few years ago the emergent gang was tripping over themselves to identify themselves as the pomo church (and some in the ec still do). it seems that a much better dialogue would be possible if everyone would back away the whole modern vs. postmodern debate (i think we may discover that p.mism isnt a quantum shift but the dying gasps of modernism...if we live long enough) it may give opportunity for ECers to make their most valid points without having to argue that what they are doing is for postmoderns... fact is, in the SBC and most of evangelicalism there are still 2.5 generations that are thoroughly modern that need to die. and even our generation is pretty modern.

in other news, apparently you were at seminary at the same time as any lutz? he's a good friend of mine from college. he saw a link to you on my blog and said, i know that guy...

[Justin Tapp]

I'm not sure if I've gotten the definition of "emerging church" yet, but I think I'm closer than I was when I started.

Based on his dispensationalist comment, I think Mohler probably thinks many of the movements of churches overseas are dangerous as they're coming to their own doctrinal conclusions based on Scripture without any historical awareness of previous theologians or church creeds, and also figuring out on their own how to do church in their own cultures. According to him, all churches should agree with previously affirmed creeds and decisions. (What if people are completely unaware of these creeds and history and have only a Bible as their guide?)

To me it's really simple: we live in a post-modern society, so certain parts of how the church looks and operates will reflect pm, as well as reflect other parts of the culture (example: meeting in coffee houses, PowerPoint, etc.)

It's no different than a church in a 3rd-world country that reflects aspects of its own culture (women with covered heads, bread-breaking, etc.).

Am I missing the boat completely?

If I'm not in the "emerging church camp", what does Mohler say I should think the church should function and look like?

[Steve McCoy]

David, yeah I know Andy. Reformed Baptist guy, right? Send him over. He have a blog?

I think you are right on the language issue and the generations issue, at least as far as I can tell. Thanks for adding that.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
The issue is simpler than this. Until Carson and Mohler take the time to read up and meet with the emerging movement leaders, and learn that Emerging and Emergent are not the same thing, they won't be able to give a fair judgment of the whole.

Who counts for Emerging?

Rob Bell, McManus, McLaren, Pagitt, TSK, Steve Taylor, Tony Jone, Dan Kimball -- most of these folks are theologically conservative and pomo in cultural expression. Who counts is the issue?

This is my beef with them, and it is really an important one, important enough that it could completely undo their arguments against Emerging movement/church while they may have fine arguments over against some of McLaren's stuff.

[Scot McKnight]

Here's a good link on what I mean:

http://www.alancreech.com/

[Justin Taylor]

Scot,

In what sense do you think McLaren, Jones, Pagitt et al are "theologically conservative"?

JT

[Steve McCoy]

Justin (Tapp), you are talking like someone with overseas experience. :)

I disagree on your first long paragraph. No non-Christian anywhere in the world (except those who have been raised in church, really) know the creeds and such. True. But I see the job of mission as not only conversion and then take Scripture and God and go. I see it as instructive beyond just conversion. We are to make them aware of God's work around the world, and that would include doctrinal instruction as best we can. Though they might not know the creed directly, they will be influenced by them because the missionaries have.

That's why the feet of missionaries are beautiful, they embody and expose the gospel to new people and build upon what they know about God and truth.

I agree with you I think in terms of a church that looks like the culture. Something a missionary would see most clearly. Appreciate what you are saying.

[Joe Thorn]

His questions at the end are good, but the whole of it still misses the boat as far as I can tell. It just isn't fair (at best) or honest (at worst). I believe Mo' will have to come around and embrace churches who are not afraid of the term, but many of those churches seem to be using the term less and going for "missional."

[Scot McKnight]

Justin, I'm sorry. "Most" is the word I used, perhaps I should have said "some." I was thinking I'd give a list of those "right-wing emerging types" and put in Driscoll.

Which is my point, and I hope you can grant it: it is very hard to classify who is and who is not emerging. Emergent is quite different, as it is a group. "Emerging" is the wider movement and it is covers from Emergent all the way to many pomo types who are dead-on Evangelicals when it comes to theology.

[Steve McCoy]

Scot, I think you have explained it well.

[John Mark]

I'm skeptical of any movement toward unity between emergent and Mohler's evangelicalism. I think Mohler assumes that his group has answered all the theology questions correctly. When he says emergent must affirm a set of non-negotiable doctrines, I read emergent must affirm what my group believes to be non-negotiable. I was trying to think of what a move toward unity would look like.
1)discussion on whether a boundaried understanding of the church is best(i'm thinking of Grenz's bounded vs. centered)
2)if there can be agreement that boundaries are important, then Mohler's evangelicalism would have to pretend for a little bit that their essentials aren't necessarily what is essential and/or that what they hold essential is not even right let alone essential(here is where my skepticism kicks in strict confessionalism doesn't seem to allow for this depth of discussion)
3)if by chance agreement could be reached on essentials then there would have to be agreement not to move the target/boundaries once they have been established

I know some emergents agree with Mohler's theology, but if they keep asking the questions they are asking it leads them further away from Mohler etc. (take what I say with a grain of salt and an assumed ignorance on my part)

[Justin Taylor]

Thanks for the clarification, Scot. I had lunch the other day with Pagitt and Jones. Along with some help from Steve, I'm beginning to understand the Emergent vs. emergent vs. emerging distinctions. Though I will say this: if you and I have been confusing and conflating the two in recent days, then I'm not sure there's much hope that the more casual observer is going to make such a rarefied distinction. My personal hope would be that the more theologically conservative wing of the emergent conversation would adopt a label that would indicate that they are asking the same questions but giving quite different answers.

[Steve McCoy]

Let me just say this (sidebar). I really appreciate Justin discussing these things. Scot too. This is the way through the muck of the ec. I am really thrilled to see it.

For what it's worth, I truly see Mohler's questions as something. I wasn't happy with a lot he said, but it's not his style to end like he did. I truly hope it means something.

I've been of the opinion for some time that the time isn't too far away where a movement will solidify (now there's a national director of Emergent) and then the whole of the ec will begin to splinter. Lines will begin to be drawn.

I think you can talk about the Emergent network/organization directly, you can talk about individual authors and pastors directly, but I still say have some restraint on drawing clear lines for the ec, which is really a catch-all for so much.

Rambling session over.

[Account Deleted]

Steve,

You know I have been down this road before. I just wanted to chip in that I think Scot is right. Since last December and the impending release of "Reclaiming the Center", I have been hopeful there would be more dialogue rather than sniping in books, in fact was working toward some kind of symposium through Fuller and a friend there to get Carson and Grenz together before Grenz's untimely death.

You are correct that McLaren does not speak for all ec but most won't do more than read one McLaren book and feel as though they understand what is being said. Not sure that helps much either as you well point out.

How about some comment on the recent PBS series? The second is in the main an interview with McLaren. I think Scot actually gives some healthy balance to Carson which would be some healthy balance to Mohler since he takes Carson's flag and waves it.

Todd

[PLStepp (Theophilus Punk)]

Regarding the PBS series: I have some REALLY mixed feelings.

I hated the way it played up the edgy, new-agey, anti-authoritarian aspects of the "movement."

It made Emergent and emerging (I'm not really too clear on the differences) look like it's/their raison d'etre was to cater to selfish, self-absorbed 20-somethings (and unreconstructed hippies like myself) who want a "smorgasbord" Christianity: "a little bit of this and a little bit of that and I get a Christianity that doesn't offend me or make me do things I don't want to do."

I KNOW that the conversation/movement is about more than that.

Perry

[PLStepp (Theophilus Punk)]

Sorry, that's "its."

[Scot McKnight]

I don't have a desire to get yet another thread started here, but asking the more conservative (theologically speaking) side of the emerging movement to stand up and give us their theological creed is missing, so far as I can see, what this whole thing is about.

It is first and foremost a missional movement, one concerned to express the gospel and reach out with the gospel. This missional center is how the movement wants to be identified.

I'd love to post my article on this, but it is going to the Covenant Companion and when they give me permission I'll post it.

But, this is so important: one thing that "unites" (which is used loosely even then) the emerging movement is its missional, rather than theologically-statement, focus.

[Todd]

Is the only way to look at an "ecclectic" expression of faith as a "smorgasboard." If that is the case then it seems to be we must lop off 3/4 of church history or all become Catholic. Much of the recovery in many emerging conversations revolves around an "order of life" that recalls habits and practices from years prior to the Reformation. These are then woven into the fabric of a community bent on engagement with the world rather than entrenchment from the world.

Carson accuses "emerging/Emergent" of picking and choosing and then not belonging to anything. In the "Free Church" tradition and in the "Autonomous Baptist Church" these seem to be consistent habits not violations.

Scot, so we are always going to have us vs. them regardless of the source of unity? I am thinking of your comment -

"but asking the more conservative (theologically speaking) side of the emerging movement to stand up and give us their theological creed is missing"

personally, i am thinking i should have engaged some of those theologians i was warned about in college and seminary. not in order to accept unorthodoxy, but to discover what was driving their conversations - what were they attempting to grapple with that led them to their assertions. Newbigin has a good section in his third chapter that gives his take on what was behind, say, Schleirmacher and then Feurbach. we might learn from rather than summarily dismiss them. i see a lot of that going on within the ec where people are looking for voices that give attention to engagement rather than the conxtant excoriating invective.

thoughts?

[Steve McCoy]

I think unity is a huge issue, and a major reason why the ec exists in some form in the first place.

I agree with Scot on the missional heart of the ec. We need to be sure to say that it is possible to appear missional outwardly and deny some pretty important things. So when we try to say that unity in the past was theological and unity now is missional, I think we need to say that it should be unity in both. I want to believe what's true and live it.

If we can find out how to be both missional and theological (in the good sense for both) then we will be in a place that Mohler and the ec can stand together. I think we aren't too awful near that yet, unfortunately. I think Mark Driscoll is doing this very well and I encourage Mohler to deal with what he is saying.

[david rudd]

i think steve is correct that the time is not far when we will really see the end of the conversation and the beginning of a movement. that will probably lead to several splinter groups which begin identifying themselves as emergent baptists, emerging lutherans, etc... there may even be an emerging emergent.
however, i think Scot's thoughts on the strong missional thread point to the one thing that will continue to be shared by these groups and that hopefully can keep them from following the denominational isolationism of past generations (particularly we baptists).

steve, andy's blog is here.

[Paul]

I'm not going to speak for Scot, but I think his point (and Steve's counter point) are the real sticky points in this whole matter - and Todd throws in some thoughts for another option which the emerging movement considers, but which the Mohler/Carson camp will not.

Steve, I think the question is: can we work together with those whose mission is the same as ours (and that implies some things theologically) without drawing lines in the sand. If we're going to have to draw lines in the sand then there will simply be some good, dedicated, evangelical, Christian people with whom we will not partner in mission, because they aren't interested in our non-negotiables.

And a major part of the problem is that we are ready to cast them aside as less than Christian. A good book is Walter Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination, but most Southern Baptists would dismiss him because he belongs to the UCC and would probably deny inerrancy - both fatal errors for many.

N.T. Wright has given us some tremendous writings and lectures but his is out of bounds for many because they suspect he has a faulty view of justification and possibly the atonement - so "stay away!"

It sounds like what you are saying is that we need a third movement - something between neo-evangelicalism and ec that has a foot in both. If that is the case then I'll have to side with John Mark - I'm skeptical about the reality of such a project.

[Steve McCoy]

Possibilities...

Guys like Driscoll have provided such a good option from denominational efforts that I expect many will jump on for real training and mentoring and discipleship. 1 Tim 4:12, Timothy is told to not let anyone look down on him because he's young, but to set an example. Driscoll's example and that of others will draw many out of evangelical theological hubris for the chance to really make a difference. I think Piper is doing a similar work, as is Keller (NYC) and others. Evangelicalism, as I see it, is in a pickle and missional guys are going to be the new leaders whether they seek it out or not.

Whatcha think?

[JM]

I think Driscoll, Piper, and Keller would be great mentors for missional calvinists. They would all require allegiance to reformed theology to be part of their programs right? that would seem to eliminate a lot of people.

[Steve McCoy]

JM, these guys are examples (and very good ones at that). They aren't the "only show in town." But my point is that real change and future unity will be based on younger missional guys setting examples that are solid and grow to be appreciated by folks who currently knee-jerk at the word "emerging."

And after all Mohler is Calvinistic, so the examples I gave are in the right context to bridge the ec gap with evangelicalism.

[Todd]

Steve,

please clarify - your last line implies that all evangelicals are calvinists and so following Driscoll, Piper and Keller would be the examles to follow to help bridge the ec gap with evangelicals?

we know all ec are not calvinists. so ... just looking for clarification.

by the way, i like Driscoll (read Reformissionary and heard his talk at Soularize in Seattle a number of years ago (on cd). i like Piper. have not read much of Keller. probably would like him too.

my beef is not with calvinists you never know, i just might be one. my concern is the inference that the only way to bridge ec with evangelicalism lies with calvinists.

am i reading wrong?

[Steve McCoy]

I think you read it wrong. The last line above in my comment is talking about Mohler, who is a Calvinist. And so these Calvinists will make the missional mindset a little easier to swallow. The gap being bridged is in the mind of guys like Mohler, which will help all of evangelicalism since he speaks for many and is beloved by many.

Does that make sense of it now?

[Todd]

Thanks Steve - you are quick ...

for some of us who are not SBTS grads, our interactions with Mohler are more through writings (articles/blog/etc). others have not had the close interactions you and your wife have had and i am grateful they were available for you. that being said, Mohler may not speak for as many in evangelicalism from a lack of engagement. i think there are a number in differing quarters who will need the gap bridged to help address the "pickle" you have described either here or elsewhere regarding the state of evangelicalism.

by the way - i like the catalyst that are your thoughts.

[Steve McCoy]

I think we agree, per your last comment Todd. It's definitely bigger than Mohler, but he is one of the most outspoken critics and one of the first guys Larry King calls on to take on wacky Rabbis. I was simply trying to stay on thread topic by referencing Mohler. :)

Thanks for the kind words.

[John Mark]

I think Mohler and his type will/do embrace Driscoll. I think they view him as a hipper version of themselves, a cool calvinist if you will. They love it that he dissed emergents about substitutionary atonement. I think their ideal for emergent would be a change in externals so that the 20-30's can be reached (a methodoligical change).