Stetzer on Emerging Church

Ed Stetzer has a new article on the Emerging Church in Baptist Press.

Comments

[Jeremy P]

While I think some of his descriptions may be accurate for some, I hesitate to classify or categorize people or churches. Though categorization may help answer some questions on the front end of understanding the emerging church, I don't believe that it fosters long term possibilities for conversation and discovery. While I personally struggle with categorizing people, I know that I must continue striving to remove people from the boxes in which I place them so that I can hear who they are without comparing them to where someone else is or even where someone else says they are.
What is the alternative? Just begin by listening, not categorizing.

I hope that makes sense. I'm up way too late!

[john]

For the most part, I find this article helpful. With all the buzz around emerging churches in recent years, it almost seems that anyone trying to do church differently than Willow Creek or Saddleback is categorized as emerging. This is obviously way too broad of a categorization, so I'm thankful to see Stetzer trying to shape some understanding of the different streams of thought.

[Account Deleted]

Disappointed but not at all surprised that there is no room for theological development. So, as long as you keep the same conservative interpretation of theology and add some "relevant" candles, you're OK. Or if you even venture out a bit and experiment with new "forms" of church, we might be OK with that. But nothing else. Same old, same old.

[Scott M]

Before I start, I'll confess again that I'm a lousy Baptist. It mostly doesn't bother me since it's clear God wants me in the Baptist church of which I'm a member, but it's a caveat I feel compelled to offer. At the same time, I'm not "emerging" anything. I'm a full-blown, second-generation, forty year old, post-whatever with a story of Christian conversion that cannot be reduced to a single event or simple story who is striving to find a place within the American church.

I've also read and listened enough to things by Stetzer to recognize that he is honestly and sincerely trying to relate to those who are different than him. I truly honor and respect that effort. We clearly share a deep love for God and others.

With that said, his categories strike me as problematic. It may be that he must reduce it to categories in order to translate and communicate with those on the other side of the cultural divide. Even as I distrust the categories, I grant this may be true. But still ... they bother me. Accept these people, keep these at arm's length, and reject these others. At least, that's how his categories seem to distill to me.

And the sample reasons he gave for rejecting others (even as you learn from their wrong-headed theology) bothers me. He starts with "substitutionary atonement", for example. Scot McKnights exploration of the atonement in Embracing Grace strikes me as the best approach to the topic I've ever seen. "Substitionary atonement" is not "bad" or "wrong", but it has always struck me as ... incomplete.

There is also the reality that Scripture does not always give a clear and certain answer. That may be because in some instances the whole truth is a mystery that we cannot fully grasp. Or some other reason. But it's clearly true. For instance, Scripture clearly both affirms God's faithfulness and warns against apostasy. In such instances, I tend to simply take both seriously and at face value without attempting to reconcile them.

There are some things that are clearly heresy and something other than Christian. Denying the humanity of Christ is one as is denying the deity of Jesus. Denying the resurrection is another. But I sense that list is much shorter than many desire.

But those are just my thoughts.

[Paul]

Stetzer came to an event in Tulsa last fall. There he told us that his experience in church planting has been exclusively of the seeker-sensitive variety. My sense was that in some ways he views emergent as just a further development of the seeker movement. I don't totally get that sense from this article, but I still hear overtones.

I would say that I agree with Steven and John as well. The generally accepted categories we tend to use in theology are often incomplete. But admitting so makes people uncomfortable.

I also wonder what he might think of someone like N.T. Wright who wouldn't likely subscribe to inerrancy and would view substitutionary atonement at least as incomplete yet hasn't abandoned the faith and to the contrary seems to have a pretty robust understanding and experience of it.

[Paul]

Another question. Is the complementarian view on gender issues really on par with the atonement and Jesus' resurrection?

[Marty Duren]

No Paul, it isn't on the same par, but when dealing with the current SBC fundies, our views on all of them are evaluated equally.

[Jeremy P]

Scott M,

Thanks for pointing out Stetzer's heart. Since I am less familiar with his work, I appreciate the understanding you extend to him. Maybe I should have done a little more as well.

I resonate with your struggle with categories. Though I know they can be helpful, they also hinder personal discernment, especially when distilled as Stezter has.

Beyond listening, what alternatives are there, especially when explaining to people less familiar with emerging ideas?

[Scott M]

Jeremy,

I always first try to understand where a fellow Christian is coming from. Sometimes it seems like a place other than love, but often it's not. And in Stetzer's case, it just seems clear to me that he's trying. My default position tends to be to withhold judgement.

As far as suggestions go, I'm not really sure. Maybe his categories will be some assistance with those who seem to need categories. At least he stresses that we approach all with at least some openness and willingness to learn. But I struggle from the other direction. How can I communicate with my brothers and sisters in the church who tend to think in categories and questions (or lack of questions) that are alien to me?

I tend to approach it individually. I strive to listen, even when I don't fully understand, and then follow each conversation where it wants to go. Sometimes we find better understanding. Other times we don't. But I try to listen first.

I've recently had the insight that many of the people in the "evangelical" church believe the experience of being raised attending a Christian church is the normative American experience. And while it remains the experience of a strong plurality (and in some parts of the country remains a truth of the majority) that is largely simply untrue today. But once I understood that unstated assummption, a ton of behaviors and statements that had never made sense to me suddenly did.

Mostly it's a long, slow process. I don't think there are any quick and easy answers. At least I've never found them. But then, I'm still thrilled to finally discover there are people like Scot McKnight who say things I can truly embrace. ;-)

[Dino]

I disagree with Stetzer and his implications for the revisionists category.

If we have learned anything from history it is that when we hold theological constructs too tightly and don't think through their implications we get in trouble. It happened with the medieval interpretation of cosmology as well as America's rationale for slavery.

Plus historically there have been several views and perspectives of atonement, hell, and women. As to the Gospel, shouldn't every generation really wrestle with the question "What is the Gospel? Why is it unhealthy to rethink what our theological contructs are on these matters and be willing to change if neccessary in light of new understandings, perspectives, and historical data?

Criticism of the relevants (which Ed seems to have the most praise for) can also be made that all they are doing is re-packaging (marketing) the church, but have no new theological thoughts. For many it is the "modern" church dressed up in Postmodern garb.

It's not that I think Ed is wrong for wanting to disagree with conclusions being made by "so called revisionists", but the implication that questioning some theological constructs is not permitted, and if allowed then we are somehow abandoning the Bible, theology, church history, and the church and its practces.

I don't think that is neccessarily true historically nor of the emrging church movement of today

[jason]

I appreciate what others have mentioned here b/c as I read the article I kept asking myself, "which category do I fit in?" And when I couldn't find myself in one of the categories I wasn't sure what exactly to do. Does that make sense? Does anyone else struggle with that? (maybe I'm too much of a people pleaser.)

So I feel better knowing that some on here found his article lacking.

[Kgreg]

Brothers,

I come before you a repentant homosexual, delivered from sin by the grace of Jesus Christ.

As much as I agree that it is important to question in seeking the truth, and as true as it is that a complementarian view of gender is NOT on par with atonement and Jesus' resurection, I implore you, no, I beg each of you to stand fast on the truth that homosexuality is outside of our Father's will for His creation. Please, brothers, to not do this will condemn tens of thousands of men and women who need the liberating truth of salvation and repentance.

[Kgreg]

Also, if it had not been an "emergent" church that seemed culturally relavent to me, but also told the truth without hesitation, I wouldn't be here to participate in this conversation.

[Nick P.]

From the last paragraph of the article:
<---many in the blogosphere are questioning the ecumenical nature of new partnerships--->
is Stetzer referring to the Emergent/Jewish meeting and the discussion surrounding it?

[Rick Bennett]

of the many minor issues I have with this article (good is what it attempts to do for the audience it has), one would be his characterization of Marcus Borg as a mainline theologian.

Borg would not consider himself such, while Lindbek and Barth would be in that camp. It is interesting that he chose a red herring such as Borg, instead of an N.T. Wright, or one of the more influential theologians to this movement (or the mainline church).