Warning to 'Emerging Church'

I learned recently that John Hammett (SEBTS prof of theology) delivered a paper at The Evangelical Theological Society meeting a couple of weeks ago on the Emerging Church: "An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church."  I don't know if it's online anywhere (it's online now) but he has kindly emailed it to those interested in reading it.  So I have it on my desktop right now, but I haven't read it yet.

Baptist Press has picked this up as a news story: "Baptist Scholar Sounds a Warning to 'Emerging Church."  Here are a few snippets.  I've pointed out a couple of things in bold.

The leaders of many "emerging" churches echo McLaren’s claim, saying that traditional churches must change or die. Hammett, however, charges that this type of approach is overly simplistic. Many so-called "traditional" churches, he said, are reaching people by simply teaching the word of God and sharing the Gospel, he said.

[...]

Hammett also criticized emerging church leaders for letting cultural concerns over postmodernism drive their agendas, rather than being driven solely by Scripture.

"Key leaders of the emerging church affirm that they love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures," he said. "I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of these leaders, nor the reality of their commitment to Scripture. But in reading their material in books, websites and articles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the concern to respond to postmodernism is what is really driving the movement.

"It seems that the central problem with the emerging church ... is that in its zeal to respond to postmodern culture in a way that is evangelistically effective and personally and ecclesiologically refreshing, they have not yet carefully critiqued postmodernism," Hammett continued. "Without such critique, there is a real danger that the movement will appropriate elements of postmodern thought that cannot be integrated into a genuinely evangelical Christian worldview."

[...]

While the emerging church’s desire to engage a lost culture is admirable, Hammett said, they should do so with caution and a willingness to learn from traditional churches, not with a willingness to uncritically accept postmodernism.

"The more desirable alternative is for all churches to engage the culture, with a zeal to understand its questions and to speak its language, but also with a resolute willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it," he said. "This challenge of thoughtful engagement with contemporary culture lies before the emerging church and all branches of evangelicalism."

A couple of thoughts...

1. I wonder if Dr. Hammett sees the difference here between a desire to understand and reach a culture influenced by postmodernity and uncritically accepting postmodernism.  These are very different things.  And if I read him right, I think Dr. Hammett hasn't distinguished these ideas.

Maybe he speaks this way because he thinks EC'rs muddle the line?  Maybe so.  I wouldn't fight over that claim.  But as he assesses the movement he needs to be clear on the difference.  Though I have no problem saying some in the EC are too accepting of postmodernism, there are many who are simply trying to reach a culture that has been influenced by postmodernism.

2. He says churches need to have a "willingness to take the posture of Christ against culture where biblical fidelity requires it."  What does he mean?  I'm increasingly skeptical over the intentions of statements like this one.

Critics of the EC may wonder if my skepticism is based in an unwillingness to see what's wrong with the culture because I would rather speak of love and grace than sin and judgment.  That's not my point at all.  I'm skeptical because of the 'culture war' mentality of much of evangelicalism, and of the SBC in particular.  I think it's the wrong approach to culture, it always has been, and the EC in large part is looking for a way to be the Church without scolding the culture.

Again, I'm fine saying the EC has created new problems at times in this area and in other areas.  But I think a non-scolding approach to culture is a better approach, not a lesser one, and I'm curious to learn whether Dr. Hammett's quote above is intending to hit on this topic.

I appreciate Dr. Hammett and the other scholars and pastors who are working hard to understand the EC and approach it in a conversational way.

Comments

[Roger]

>I'm skeptical because of the 'culture war' mentality of much of evangelicalism, and of the SBC in particular.

I'm confused. What do you mean by 'culture war' mentality?

[Paul]

What often kills me about these sort of critiques is the glaring question: "How far has the traditional church allowed itself to be uncritically driven by modernism?" Hello, but has anyone noticed that modernism is running rampant in our churches? Have these theologians publicly critiqued the rampant consumerism in modern evangelicalism?

They seem all too willing to critique others while giving themselves a free pass.

"Many so-called 'traditional' churches, he said, are reaching people by simply teaching the word of God and sharing the Gospel, he said."

What exactly does that mean? Because I think a lot of what gets passed off as "simply teaching the word of God and sharing the Gospel" is the word of God and the Gospel as interpreted through the lense of modernism.

[Shawn]

As I understand it the culture war is specifically with the ideology of secular anti-Christian Liberalism, and as far as that goes it seems reasonable and I agree with it. I never took the culture war to be about fighting against the culture in general. Perhaps calling it a culture war is misleading, because in reality its an ideology war and one the church must fight.

I think the EC's claim that traditional Evangelical churches are driven by modernism is extremely debatable. It is often based on the false notion that reformation era creeds and confessions are an example of modernism. I think at the least thats debatable.

There is no doubt that there are legitimate issues within Evangelicalism that need to be dealt with, but EC imo overstates them in order to justify itself. All forms of church are made up of sinful human beings. Simply changing the form will not alter that fact, and EC sometimes comes across as arrogant in the way it points the finger of moral blame at Evangelicalism as though it were perfect and without blame. When reasonable concerns about EC are raised the response from some EC quaters is shrill and hypocritical. There are good things about EC. There are also reasons to be concerned about some of the formms it is taking. I am losing count of the number of times I have heard someone in EC say that all they need is Jesus and they dont need to worry about the Trinity and other traditional doctrine. This may not be a reflection on everyone in EC, but it is a cause for concern that that is how some are taking it.

The other issue is whether we even live in a "post-modern" culture in the first place. I think this very idea deserves more scrutiny.

[david]

i think one of the big problems in this whole issue is the way terms like "modernism" and "post-modernism" are thrown around.

the issues that many EC-types take issue with in evangelicalism are not the result of modernism, but rather of western industrialism.

i think it is harmful when we make statements like, "modernism is running rampant in our churches" (not attacking you Paul, i hear this all the time).

modernism is no more evil then medieval(sp?)thinking, ancient, thinking or postmodern/ultramodern thinking. they are simply categories we've created to identify the way people think.

modern thinking provided a cache of good for the church. with that good, comes bad. the reformation was great, but also somewhat harmful. the printing press is wonderful, but provides for new kinds of evil. the scientific method helps us understand our world, but also unduly "boxes" us in.

in this whole conversation, we need to be more precise, particularly when addressing those we disagree with. otherwise, understanding will never happen.

[bob hyatt]

Shawn-
I'd be extremely interested in seeing any of the many instances of "all they need is Jesus and they dont need to worry about the Trinity and other traditional doctrine."
Seriously- Point me to it, and I'll talk to them :)

[Doug]

"It is often based on the false notion that reformation era creeds and confessions are an example of modernism. I think at the least thats debatable."

Those creeds were not drawn up in a modernist context, so they in themselves are not the problem. People who would take those creeds and make them an eternal only-one-step-down-from-inerrant authority *are* being modernist.

"the issues that many EC-types take issue with in evangelicalism are not the result of modernism, but rather of western industrialism."

In some sense, the two go hand and glove. The methodology depends on the philosophy, and vice versa.

"modernism is no more evil then medieval(sp?)thinking, ancient, thinking or postmodern/ultramodern thinking. they are simply categories we've created to identify the way people think."

In one sense, that's true. But in another sense, we in evangelicalism have become so immersed in modernist thinking that we've lost the capacity to see where it diverges from Christianity, except in the obvious moral venues. That's where the "culture warriors" go wrong - they focus on the moral problems and propose solutions - more laws, "worldview thinking" - that really don't address the fundamental problems. (Solutions that, BTW, are thoroughly modernist. ;-} )

[stuart]

Why does it seem that these kinds of critiques always make reference to "emerging church leaders" (plural) but then only ever cite McLaren specifically.

[Paul]

Doug, good thoughts.

Shawn, you wrote: "I think the EC's claim that traditional Evangelical churches are driven by modernism is extremely debatable. It is often based on the false notion that reformation era creeds and confessions are an example of modernism. I think at the least thats debatable."

That is certainly not my contention. As Doug points out, those confessions aren't really the result of modernism. I think I could pretty easily substantiate my claim that "modernism is running rampant in our churches." But for the sake of space I won't do that here. Perhaps I'll do so at my own blog. I would say that modernism is the product of the Enlightenment and Cartesian philosophy and, again, I think it would be pretty easy to show how that is played out in the modern church. Just as one quick example, listen to any Charles Stanley sermon. He takes a passage of Scripture and makes a five or six or seven point outline out of it, despite the fact that Jesus and Paul never taught that way. I'm not saying it isn't biblical. I'm saying that it can be easily tied into Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinking (which is modernism). I also agree with Doug that we are so immersed in that way of life and thinking that we generally don't see its effects on our faith and practice.

David, you wrote: "modernism is no more evil then medieval(sp?)thinking, ancient, thinking or postmodern/ultramodern thinking. they are simply categories we've created to identify the way people think."

I don't disagree with this at all. There is no such thing as a "neutral" way of life or thinking. What I am suggesting (and what I think I suggested in my earlier post) is that there are a good number of people out there ready to critique postmodernism and in many ways make it the boogie man. Are there things that need to be critiqued? Absolutely. But we must also realize that there are things in modernism that need to be critiqued as well and those who are critiquing postmodernism aren't really doing any of that.

What is ironic in this whole discussion is that "ECers" (whoever they are) are critiquing modernism and "traditionalists" (whoever they are) are critiquing postmodernism. What I'm trying to get across is that what is good for one is also good for the other. If we are going to talk about the shortcomings of postmodernism we don't need to complain when the shortcomings of modernism are pointed out in turn....and vice versa.

What I'd like to hear is an ECer who says "Here's what I see wrong with modernism....and in the same vein here's what I see wrong with postmodernism." Or to hear a "traditionalist" do the opposite. Instead it is as if both are hunkering down to protect their own territory.

[david]

i agree, Paul. what is good for one is good for the other.

i think among the problems of modernism are the arrogant certainty that many arrive at due to their methodology. the result is a harsh judgment of all who disagree which virtually always produces an adversarial relationship with others, particularly those who most need to sense the love of the church.

i think among the problems of postmodernity is the "fear"(not a great word)of correcting others. Jesus offered a corrective lifestyle. postmodernity seeks to validate a wider spectrum of thought, which is good, but in process it often (not always; and it doesn't have to) validates all thought as "right" and able to lead to "righteousness".

my critique of modernism is probably more accurate because i lean toward modern thinking, and thus am aware i need to be more tolerant, and thus am slow to be extremely judgemental toward worldview (another bad word) i don't completely hold to...

good issue, steve.

[Scott M]

Personally, I remain uncomfortable with the label postmodern. Beyond the discomfort I feel at any similar label, I think that's because my first association tends to be the dance club scene that replaced my new wave/punk environment. ;-) Be that as it may, we have to use labels with some degree of shared meaning if we are to communicate at all, so I tend to accept and use the label. By the label, though, I'm referring to some of the things we currently understand about the shift that is occurring in the Western world in the way people process and interact with each other and the world around them.

David, since circumstance has left me with an outlook more associated with that perspective we label postmodern, I'll take a stab at its area of greatest weakness. I've recently been exploring that very thing in another setting. And I would not point toward a fear (or any similar word) or correcting others. Where it occurs, that's more symptomatic than anything. Rather, I would say the biggest area of weakness in the postmodern perspective is the struggle to believe strongly in anything. Though I would suggest there are many, many fewer areas in Christianity that require firm commitment and belief than those of a different perspective would propose, there are some. As pure atheism (whatever that is) tends to be the counterpoint to belief in the rational, modern world of the mind, so a-religious spirituality is to the postmodern. I like the idea of sharing weaknesses wiht each other and helping each other through them.

With that said, from the history and story of many of those I've looked at this past year (since a friend brought the EC to my attention), many of the leaders in that conversation/movement/whatever appear to be people who grew up completely inside the modern, evangelical culture, but at some point learned the language of the shifting culture around them. I will say they seem to speak it very well. And all the ones I've heard use it to speak a Christ I can truly grasp. (I had managed to stumble to a very similar place with a lot of help from God over the course of a decade, but it would have been nice to have more help along the way. I know a lot of people (postmodern, I guess) who would probably have never been able to walk the path I did.)

It's really not an issue of whether or not our broader culture will change. It is changing and what it will finally look like is anyone's guess, and will probably be determined long after my death. I'm just not sure that simply declaring that the changes are bad and you don't like them (as it seems some do) will accomplish very much that's useful.

Of course, the often used EC division of things into postmodern, modern, and premodern is too neat and categorized, especially that premodern lump. The ancient world looked little like the world of the Roman empire looked little the Western middle ages. But that's a minor quibble, really.

At any rate, that's a thought for today. I realized my posts tend to be long because I'm always worried I'm not providing sufficient context for my comment. Sorry about that...

[Alex]

To Steve's two points.... I think they are related. i think when he is talking about standing against the culture where biblical fidelity requires it, he is seeing that in relation to uncritically accepting PM. The usual criticism is typically aimed more specifically at PM epistemology.

[Account Deleted]

uncritical acceptance? we market our churches, the gospel and our ministries. post-modernism? or modernism? we are more interested in size, location and budget over against spirutally formed Christ-followers, churches bent on integrating life and faith and being Jesus to the world on levels beyond issues of abortion and homosexuality? uncritical acceptance?

exactly what culture was Jesus against? seems to me we find him facing off against a religious fundamentalism that stymied any opportunity to grasp a connection with God unless it was formed a certain way and so to those who had been excluded because they did not fit the existing paradigm, Jesus moves in to say, I am your way to God. why is it we so quickly overlook the location of Jesus' critics?

[Paul]

I agree, Todd. Roman culture was far more decadent than USAmerican culture in most ways and yet Jesus seemed to concentrate on those "within" rather than those "outside." I'm not sure what value there is in drawing our lines in the sand with the world around us when it seems that Jesus kept redrawing the lines wider to include the very people we have a tendency to scold.

[Steve Lehrer]

Hi Steve!

I am really enjoying your blog. I am struggling with some of your comments this last post about the emergent church. You wrote:
"But as he assesses the movement he needs to be clear on the difference. Though I have no problem saying some in the EC are too accepting of postmodernism, there are many who are simply trying to reach a culture that has been influenced by postmodernism."

The problem that I have with your point is that there must be some point at which one can generalize about the movement or "conversation." I think that the EC movement raises great questions but I think their answers are often unbiblical-- I am thinking primarily of McLaren here. But in saying that I am sure that there are some ECers that have biblical answers. Maybe those who differ significantly with McLaren and don't give into relativism and are desiring to be biblical rather than simply "converse", should consider identifying themselves as something other than ECers. Anyhow, if you have time you might enjoy peeking at my website. I think it will be right up your theological alley(www.ids.org). We just started a blog as well. Thanks.

[Steve McCoy]

Steve, I think what's interesting with the EC (and something I like about it) is that boundaries are different than you find in the traditional evangelical sense. You are asking folks who are drawing boundaries different to draw boundaries like you want. It's probably not going to happen.

Also, would you mind showing how McLaren has given in to relativism and how he is desiring to 'converse' rather than be biblical?

Thanks for the kind comments about the blog.

[stuart]

Steve L,
Are "conversing" and being biblical mutually exclusive?

Steve M,
Good observations about boundaries. I think this comment, "You're asking folks who are drawing boundaries different to draw boundaries like you want," also applies to contextualization. A large segment of evangelicalism appears to be very concerned that contextualizing the message for an emerging/postmodern/global/plural/etc. culture necessarily means that biblical/theological compromise will follow.

Yet, they seem to ignore that the gospel of Modern North American evangelicalism is itself contextualized. It first happened after WW2 when churches began to introduce "programs" to reach growing, upwardly mobile families. It happened again as boomers became adults. Enter visual aids, "seeker"-sensitivity, "contemporary" services and goofy slogans like "ever-changing methodology for an unchanging message."

It appears that many people who sincerely believe that they are "contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints" are actually contending for an expression of the faith contextualized for 20th century North Americans.

The sad irony is that many who express deep concern about biblical infidelity theological error remain blissfully unaware that the individualistic, self-centered, pragmatic "gospel" of Modern Western evangelicalism is neither theologically sound or biblically faithful.

[Account Deleted]

great thoughts stuart.

steve l - ditto mccoy's questions.

[Steve McCoy]

The 'culture war,' as I'm using it, is where Christian leaders battle the culture on various issues (ideologies) concerning morality. We are fearful of the "demise" of our culture. I think it is colored mostly as Christians scolding our culture for being sinners, as if they are to act as anything else.

[Steve McCoy]

For all, Hammett's paper is accessible here

[Shawn]

A few points as a general response to some of the above.

I attend a Vineyard church, and its the only Evangelical church I have ever attended, so I admit that my experience of Evangelicalism is limited. My church is not EC, but I dont see a lot of modernism either. Perhaps thats something unique to Vineyard because of its emphasis on the Spirit and sign and wonders.

I personally think that the modern/postmodern categories and not overly useful in determining how the Church should relate to culture, and the way in which these terms are being used, almost as accusations, by both sides, is also not helpful.

EC is very diverse and there is both wheat and chaff, as there is in all things. There is imo a huge difference between Marc Driscoll and Brian Mclaren. This is just my opinion but it seems to me that Marc wants to make the Gospel and the living of it open to people and sub-cultures (Goths, punks, geeks and so forth) that are turned off by more conservative/traditional churches but without compromising traditional doctrine and morals.

Mclaren on the other hand seems to me more like Episcopalian John Spong in that I think he wants to change the actual doctrinal/moral content of the Faith. The fact that he seems very fuzzy on some issues like hell and homosexuality, and the fact that unlike Marc he cannot seem to make his points without throwing around very harsh and insulting accusations at traditional churches is why I am suspicious.

[myles]

this whole discussion is where the Catholic idea of tradition is so helpful: check out Yves Congar's book "the meaning of tradition". the two (culture and Gospel) are not unrelated elements, with one dominating the other. they are neccesary to one another, and cannot be divorced from one another, any more than the "historical Jesus" can be divorced from Christ.

[david]

shawn,
great comparison between driscoll and mclaren. i've never been able to articulate it that well. you nailed my impression.

todd,
i'm not sure what you're doing with this paragraph:
"uncritical acceptance? we market our churches, the gospel and our ministries. post-modernism? or modernism? we are more interested in size, location and budget over against spirutally formed Christ-followers, churches bent on integrating life and faith and being Jesus to the world on levels beyond issues of abortion and homosexuality? uncritical acceptance?"

it feels like you are drawing the same old "evangelical/seeker" stereotypes. not every church that is non-emergent and non-pomo fits these categories. maybe i'm misreading you?

[Account Deleted]

david,
marketing church crosses the boundaries of labels. the competitive spirit driven by and expressed in the church creates the intentional and unintentional marketing of church. i wrote that last sentence without using modern and post-modern. it could apply to any descriptor. my church has a website, an ad in the phone book, ads in the school yearbook, sports programs and local newspaper. we have a sign on a highway right in front of our church. we have an answering machine so you will know when we meet if we are not in the office. i dare say these kinds of things are present everywhere and not exclusive to a particularly styled ministry.

to argue the "emerging church" uncritically accepts postmodern culture is to deny that any church as in some form or fashion uncritically accepted forms that are not peculiarly Scriptural. i did not suggest they are wrong but the use of those forms in many instances expresses an uncritical acceptance. i simply thought the pot was calling the kettle black.

oh, by the way, no one would think our church was "emerging" - it only shows up in our eschatolgy, missiolgoy and ecclesiology and then not very well.

[Justin Taylor]

Steve,

Some friendly fire here for your consideration:

1) What's the purpose in publicly responding to excerpts from a talk when you have access to the whole talk and yet haven't read it? Wouldn't that be like a political commentator who has access to the President's speech, hasn't read the speech, commenting on some quotes from the speech cited in a newspaper article? In terms of methodological engagement, I'm confused by your practice here. I have not yet read Prof. Hammett's paper either. Which means I wouldn't critique it or raise questions about it before giving him the courtesy of hearing his nuances, qualifications, and argumentation.

2) With regard to the "Christ against culture" model, isn't there a third--more biblical way--between the "culture wars" mentality and "being the Church without scolding the culture" (which is a bit of a caricature, IMHO). It seems to me that Keller's trifecta gets it just about right: "In a 'missional' church, the laity needs theological education to 'think Christianly' about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness. They need to know: a) what cultural practices are common grace and to be embraced, b) what practices are antithetical to the gospel and must be rejected, c) what practices can be adapted/revised" (my emphasis). If that's the case, then these three distictions need to be communicated, don't they? What evidence do you see that Prof. Hammett is saying something different here than Keller?

Thanks for the post and for your engagement on these important issues, Steve!

Best,
Justin

[Steve McCoy]

Justin, I'm no official commentator, I haven't delievered an ETS paper, I'm just a pastor who blogs. I don't see any problem in blogging on the BP article without reading the whole paper since BP is sympathetic to Hammett and should be pretty trustworthy on this. I also know that I will read the paper, probably this week, and expect to learn more. I'm sure I will discuss it unless it doesn't add to the mix.

I had the paper for a couple of days and wasn't going to post until I read it, but then the BP article was released. I use my blog to start conversations, not solely to give my opinions. And I couldn't publicly post his paper for discussion without permission, but the BP article gave me a public document to talk about. So I did. In the process I have made the paper available to others, including you, so I'm clearly not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes or be dishonest about this.

As to the Christ/culture idea, I don't know Hammett's position. I made that pretty clear in my post and didn't take any shots at him specificially on it. I'm not sure where the Keller distinctives fit in this. They are good, but a guy like Mohler and I would generally agree on a lot of stuff, but would disagree strongly on how to talk about it to the culture. I'm talking less about what we disagree with and more about how we disagree with it. I'm not sure Keller's points help with the 'how.'

[david]

todd,
thats a good clarification. thanks.
i agree that the pot calls the kettle black both ways in this whole EC vs. Evangelicalism "debate?".

[Eric M. Ashley]

If anyone is interested in reading Dr. Hammett's paper, it is available from the A-Team bloggers at the following web address:
http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf

[Steve McCoy]

Eric, I linked it in an above comment, but thanks for making sure we had it.

[Shawn]

Myles, I very much agree. I'm one of those hopefully growing number of Evagelicals who think there is a lot of value we could learn from Catholicism in general.

[stuart]

Having now had the chance to read the whole paper, here are a few more excerpts and comments:

"...the changes advocated by the Reformers were attempts to reform the church on the basis of Scripture. By contrast, the emerging church advocates the changes it does largely on the grounds of changes in the culture, and the corresponding need to adapt to those changes." (p.7)

Dr. Hammett obviously makes a true statement here. But it occurs to me that the "emergent" movement (in which I'm quite honestly not a participant) is an expression/application of the larger "missional" conversation which certainly is itself an attempt to "reform the church on the basis of Scripture." It might not be entirely accurate to conclude, then, that "the concern to respond to postmodernism is what is really driving the movement" (p.8).

Regarding Niebhur's five Christ/Culture models: "Of these five models, those in the emerging church could possibly accept any of the five as legitimate responses except [Christ against culture], for that model sees the need for the culture to change to conform to Christ, rather than for the church to adjust its methods and message in light of culture" (p.8).

Hauerwas and Willimon in the late 80s and more recently Hunsberger and the GOCN have taken a more critical look Niebhur's definition of "culture" and his 5 models and have find them insufficient. I can only assume that many in the EC would also reject all five of Niebhur's models as philosophically/missiologically/theologically insufficient. It seems that the remarks in the paper really only serve to segue into Moreland's comments which unambiguously advocate a "Christ agaisnt Culture" approach to postmodernity.

Later: "It seems that the central problem with the emerging church, one that I think Carson correctly identifies, is that in its zeal to respond to postmodern culture...they have not yet carefully critiqued postmodernism" (p.9).

While Hammet and Carson make a legitimate critique here, I wait in vain for someone to use a platform such as ETS to reprimand the considerably larger number of churches who fail to "carefully critique" (or even generally understand, for that matter) modernity, even though consumerism, pragmatism, and individualism currently represent the greater threats to mission in North America.

As to whether or not churhces should "adjust their methods and message to postmodern culture," he contends, "To do so runs the risk of becoming culture driven, rather than Scripture driven" (10).

He's right again. One need only to step into Christian bookstore or attend Sunday services in any of a number of North American mega-churches to see "culture driven" firsthand! It seems as though new attempts at contextualization face mounting scrutiny (sometimes fair and sometimes not), while the contextualization-run-amuck that is found in many of our "flagship" churches continues to get a free pass.

Which brings me to one last observation. Dr. Hammett refers to both Capital Baptist and Redeemer Pres. in the paper as churches reaching younger generations who do not wear the "emergent" label. While neither is an incense-burning, meditative-praying, candle-lighting expression of the church, neither are they typical of what has become the church in North America. Both are passionately missional, even if they're practices aren't identical. Yes, they're reaching the "under 30" crowd...they're reaching every crowd. (So much for that whole Reformed = unevangelistic nonesense, I guess...)

If anything, citing Redeemer and Capital Baptist (instead of any of a number of more "famous" megas) in this context udnerscores the need for a missional reformation in the North American church. Perhaps if more churches rediscovered their missional nature and calling, as Redeemer and Capital have done, there would be no status-quo from which the church must "emerge" in order to reach a rapidly changing culture with the gospel.

I appreciate Dr. Hammett's paper. I hope others will follow until the question isn't so much about "emergent" as it is "missional." That seems to me to be the more fundamental issue.

[Shawn]

I actually agree with some of Hammett's critique, though its a little simplistic and one sided in places. However this statement,

"...the changes advocated by the Reformers were attempts to reform the church on the basis of Scripture."

while true in itself does not tell the whole story. It is also true that the success and spread of the Reformation had a lot to do with cultural changes that were taking place at the time, and the new Protestant values fit the new culture well. The breakdown of fuedalism, the birth of capitalism and the nation-state, the printing press, widespread ownerhip of books, and the resulting rise of individual liberty created a cultural environment in which Protestantism was well placed to thrive. The Reformation was in part a critique of the old feudal culture and an acceptance of the new.

So its not entirely fair to critique EC on the issue of its acceptance of postmodern culture. There are far better issues on which to base a valid criticism. To me the problem with some versions of EC are not the acceptance of postmodern culture but the surrender to the ideology of liberalism, despite the claim of being "post-liberal".

[Paul]

Stuart,

I just finished the paper and had the exact same thoughts.

I believe Hammett has some valid points to make. There are times, however, where it seems he doesn't fully understand the issues - as when he implies that emergent is about worship style and vocabulary (p. 5).

On page 10 he says that emergent has not adequately addressed its stand on the matter of truth. I noticed that he footnoted Andrew Jone's blog regarding tying in postmodernism with emergent. Did he miss the blog post where Jones takes a clear stand on truth matters?

I'll leave it at that as Stuart has basically said everything else I had thought.

[Ted Gossard]

Someone kind of hit on this earlier.

To those who are so concerned that emergent is captitulating to culture- to whatever degree that is true, maybe we should look in the mirror.

After all, look at how so much of the evangelical church has capitulated to right- wing Republican politics and an Americanism that is miles apart from the vision of God's kingdom we find in Jesus and in Scripture.

It's kind of like the attitude, I'm going to objectively show you just how subjective you are, when all the while the objective one is looking at it all from his/her own "sanctified" subjectivity. Oh well...

[Steve McCoy]

Ted, I think that is a very important point. We should be careful not that we should compare ourselves. We should rather seek to be faithful.