Fundamentalism and the Emerging Church

Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church.  Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture.  But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house.

Mark Driscoll in the Sept 2007 Christianity Today, "Pastor Provocateur"

Comments

[Eric M Schumacher]

Is "fundamentalism" a culture--and therefor a "house that people live in"? It would seem so.

How do we help fundamentalists, like we ought to help larger culture, without simply "throwing rocks" at their house?

[Eloquorius]

Eric,

Step 1: Humility. Total, utter, radical humility as sinners with wicked hearts saved by grace alone through faith alone. From the standpoint of radical humility, it's nearly impossible to look down on or throw rocks at anyone. Radical humility begins in the heart, not the exterior. From humility we, too, will look at the heart, not the exterior matters of culture. But humble warriors are hard to find and harder to keep in the fight, since they often end up offending both sides by exposing exactly the arrogance that has separated "us from them"

[James Gordon]

Steve,

That was a great article. I was sad to see football get the cover story, though.

James Gordon

[Brian W]

I'm curious, Eric, if you think Jesus "helped" the fundamental Pharisees like he tried to minister to the "culture"? It seemed like Jesus had a very different approach between the two.

[Art Rogers]

Ummm. Having butted heads with a few Fundy's in the last couple of years, humility is not apt to change them. Fundamentalists are what Adrian Rogers used to call "tire slashers" or "do what ever you must for the sake of the cause" kind of people. If they are just strongly conservative, but are humble themselves (therefore receiving humble minds from others) then they aren't "Fundamentalists." Humility works with the sincere. The insincere Fundy will use your humility against you - I'm totally burned out on that dialog because of that.

Steve,

Interesting thought that Fundamentalism is driving the truly "liberal" end of the Emergent movement. Two extremes need one another to exist? No need for one without the other?

It seems that if the "liberal" end of the Emergent Church didn't exist, Fundamentalists would create one to validate their existence - and vice versa.

[Larry]

Only a very narrow definition of culture will allow Driscoll's statement to work. It is also a pretty narrow definition of fundamentalism.

Culture is much more than where people live or what people live in. It is values, ideals, etc. I won't attempt a formal definition here, but suffice it to say that it should not even be questioned that there are some cultures that should have strong biblical denunciation, which I would say is throwing rocks.

I think statements like this are popular becuase they resonate with people who have preconceived biases. But when we begin to delve deeper into what culture is and what it means to have a culture or to be a part of a culture, a statement like Driscoll's approaches absurdity.

There is some truth to it. But there are a great amount of assumptions brought to it that are inadequate to really deal with culture and I think we need to recognize that.

But having said that, fundamentalism didn't create the liberal end of the emerging church. Sin did. Let's put the blame where it lies ... on people who are made in God's image who choose to rebel against God and his word.