The Emergent Village blog reports on press the emergent church/conversation has been receiving recently. They link to a news piece by Tom Brokaw and a newspaper article from the Tallahassee Democrat.
Mr. Brokaw’s interview is rather short-sighted, it’s only 3 and a half minutes and focuses on one church. Understandably, it has some of the readers of The Emergent Village a bit miffed. The Tallahassee Democrat article, on the other hand, does a much better job of characterizing something that refuses to be nailed down. About the only thing the Emergent church can agree on is that they love Jesus. From the Article:
Theologians correctly identify the movement as Christ-centered. As one Emergent leader expresses it, the purpose of the church and its ministry “is to follow Jesus and reach out for others.”And:
the Emergent thinkers do deny absolute knowledge of God and a doctrinal exclusiveness. They don’t accept the inherited theological tradition uncritically, and they certainly don’t accept the prevailing version of evangelical social ethics.And as a way of describing the worship service:
While there is no “typical” Emergent worship service (ministries are shaped in accordance with a specific local situation), there are broad emphases in the movement — which were exemplified at Jacob’s Well. The movement seeks ways of doing church that resonate with contemporary postmodern culture. Worship is characteristically eclectic (including pre-modern, modern and postmodern elements), experiential and sensory (sometimes candles, incense, etc.).
My experience with the movement has been almost wholly positive (there are crazy people everywhere). Anyone been to an Emergent service? Was it a good or bad experience? Have you been noticing more press about the Emergent movement recently?
Loading ...
December 5, 2007 at 14:10
I don’t expect my comments to be well received, especially on this topic. I look at the big picture of what the Emergers stand for, and their focus on postmodern thinking speaks volumes to me. How can Emergers say they deny absolute truth and proclaim Christ at the same time? Read John 14 and 18, brother! Jesus claims to be truth!
And the ones commenting on the Sandon article over at Emergent Village seem to agree with that premise. They think they can be followers of Christ while negotiating any and all claims to truth. Rob Bell’s “Bullhorn Guy” video demonstrates the absurdity of the Emerger philosophy. I agree with Mark Driscoll it’s a movement that goes back to Eden and the Serpent.
It just goes to show that you can slap “New and Improved” on anything and a lot of people with buy it.
December 5, 2007 at 14:30
REB, I would agree that anyone who says there is no absolute truth will run into many, many, many problems. That philosophy leads to all sorts of fun (read: not fun) issues with everything from linguistics to morality.
However, it seems to me that the focus of the emergent movement is more on questioning what people have claimed are absolutes about God and theology.
Also, I cannot speak directly for Rob Bell, but he’s often linked to the ethos of the Emergent movement.
December 5, 2007 at 17:28
Hey guys, I’m still trying to figure out what the “Emergent Church” is! So far, no one seems able to give a satisfactory definition.
December 5, 2007 at 19:34
For a good, broad introduction I’d start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church
But if I were you I’d try to track down an Emergent church in your area and ask them directly. The movement strives to be open to conversation.
For print material: forget everything you’ve just heard about Brian McLaren and actually read A New Kind of Christian, you might be surprised.
December 5, 2007 at 21:31
“the Emergent thinkers do deny absolute knowledge of God and a doctrinal exclusiveness” is not the same as denying absolute Truth as I read it, but instead acknowledging that in our finite minds we can’t know everything. There are certain things that are black and white in Scripture, but not everything. (Maybe you’re referring to something besides the quotes cited in this blog post though; I haven’t read the article.)
I don’t know if it’s right to typify an emergent service either. It is still a “movement,” and is thus more of a mindset than it is anything else.
December 5, 2007 at 21:52
God is absolutely true, and His Word is true. My last sermon was not absolutely true. But I tried my best.
wikipedia used to be good but is now really messed up on emerging church – an enemy has done this!
lots of good blogs and resources on line
December 5, 2007 at 22:13
Wow. The Wikpedia article kind of nails it. Here is a quote from Mark Driscoll, friend of Bruce McClaren and former Emergent promoter:
In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God’s sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.—Mark Driscoll
And Marcus Borg now called an emergent! Wow. I really believe Emergent theology and practice is a rabbitt trail. Of course I agree with the informality, rejection of stuffy tradition and new forms of worship. I just don’t care to join Jim Wallis, Bruce McClaren and others in being apologists for left wing politics or Marcus Borg in denying the truth of the Bible.
December 5, 2007 at 22:41
I’m feeling sheepish now that I read 1st Emergent 2:1 in my Bible where Paul tells us – Don’t be hatin’.
So I have a joke to share.
Jesus, the Pope, Albert Mohler, Marcus Borg, and Brian McLaren are fishing in a boat on the Sea Galilee. And Jesus asks them “On what did I say I will build my Church?”
The Pope answers, “On Peter.”
Albert Mohler replies, “On Peter’s confession of faith.”
Marcus Borg quips, “I don’t believe you have the right to ask that question!”
And Brian McLaren says, “Is that relevant to anything? Let’s talk about Buddha!”
December 6, 2007 at 07:41
I need to know more about the ‘emerging church’, but from where I stand it just looks like the latest manifestation of good intentioned people compromising with the world because that is easier than taking a stand on controversial issues. I would really like to look 20 years down the road and see if these people will still be a part of a ‘church’ fellowship.
December 6, 2007 at 09:59
Aesthetic Elevator: I’m not sure you can typify the typical emergent service either. So much of it isn’t happening in church services. And when it does meet in a building it seems that the service is very dependent on situation and circumstance. Good point on Absolute truth too.
For those looking for more resources:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=516
has another good introduction and response to the main issues people have with the emergent church/movement. He opens with a very good intro to the Emerging church and postmodernity. The author is a respected New Testament scholar.
Rick: I’m not familiar with Marcus Borg, but I have read McLaren and Wallis before, and I’ve never gotten the impression that either denies the truth of the bible. Do I agree with all of their interpretations of the bible? No. They’re fallen individuals just like you and I.
December 6, 2007 at 10:32
Relevant ran an article in July/August 06’. It was a pretty good read. I’d have to say that I enjoy Rob Bell’s teaching through Nooma and his book “Velvet Elvis.” I think his views on community are huge in the way we need to impact our societies, however, I can say that I don’t agree with everything he wrote in “Velvet Elvis.” He even tells you not to, he tells you to examine it for yourself, take it part and think over it.
In fact, I don’t agree 100% with 100% of the authors I have ever read. We all have a different take on theology, even when it seems the same there are little nuances that really make it personal. Sure we can all line up some truths that we do agree on, but well, there’s a lot we don’t.
December 6, 2007 at 14:17
Could this be a movement just like the “charasmatic” movement of the 70’s & 80’s?...sounds like it to me. You will have kooks in every crack of christianity, I say let the fruit speak for itself. So far it sounds good to me…
December 6, 2007 at 15:10
Dan: I’m always rather wary when I find myself nodding to everything an author/speaker says, it’s a quick way to forget Jesus. I’ve heard plenty of people say Velvet Elvis is good or bad, but nothing of its content. Does Bell talk about the emergent church at all in the book?
deej: great point, you do have kooks in every crack. Pretty much every denomination and church has something or someone they wish would go away. And especially because the church/movement focuses so much on inclusiveness. Care to elaborate more on the charismatic movement in the 70s and 80s? Did you have much contact with it?
December 6, 2007 at 15:35
Chris, I understand the mindset of “questioning what people have claimed are absolutes about God and theology.” Some assumptions need and deserve to be shaken (praise God the one on slavery was). But isn’t the whole point of God’s Word to reveal absolutes about Himself? Paul wrote, “If anyone preaches a different Gospel than what we passed on to you, let him be eternally condemned.” (Gal 1:8) I’m genuinely interested how an emergent preacher would teach on this or other similar passages – or would he skip over it?
I’m not 100% a Driscoll fan (harsh style/demeanor concerns), but Mark really nails it in terms of seeking the “good” of the movement: thinking out-of-the-box in worship style, breaking down unhealthy barriers to reaching out (being “missional”), being relevant to our culture, etc.,
BUT not compromising the Gospel, and being “not ashamed” (Rom 1:16) of believing, teaching, and proclaiming it with God-given authority.
That’s why he and others who agree have aligned with the Acts 29 network, http://www.acts29network.org. Check it out, and understand their purpose and reasoning in distinguishing/distancing themselves from the “emergent conversation”.
December 6, 2007 at 15:56
danr: Pastor Mark’s off-the-cuff comments garner too much press, that man is truly trying to follow Christ. Like everyone, he misses it sometimes, but his sermons have really ministered to me. The Acts 29 thing is great, his belief in the church and the bible is truly inspiring.
I totally agree with your stance on scripture as well, the bible is absolutely vital to understanding God. The questioning is hopefully being directed at what has become the status quo interpretations of the bible, not so much the claims of the text. You said it yourself, the bible has been used to rationalize all sorts of evils.
Also, I highly highly doubt an emergent preacher would skip over Galatians 1:8, at least one that’s truthfully trying to understand the bible. It would be terribly hypocritical of them or any preacher not to think this through. Have you heard any preacher brush this verse off before?
December 7, 2007 at 01:18
Chris, I can’t honestly remember if he does or not. The book is his worldview… or so I gathered. Bell is labeled as “emergent” or “emerging” as is his church Mars Hill. Wether this came from him or the church I have not a clue, it may be more a label from society… we like to labels things so we can put it in categories to see if we agree with it or not. Really we like it when others do this for us so we don’t have to think for ourselves.
Chris, as I tell people with any book by any author… read it for yourself. Don’t take what I or anyone else says about it, we each have an agenda if the author doesn’t agree with us we typically throw it to the wind.
December 7, 2007 at 10:58
Dan Browne: Oh boy do we label things! I recently joined facebook and I’m just amazed at how many options there are to aggregate our lives into likes and dislikes.
December 7, 2007 at 12:02
Chris:
Because marcus Borg’s home is in Oregon, I am more familiar than some with him. He is Chairman of a national group of scholars who meet every year to vote on which parts of the Gospel the “Historical Jesus” actually spoke or did. They rule out most of the miraculous accounts, healings, eschatological Statements as early christian inventions. He is the author of 11 books and a well respected Biblical historian. He is an “interspiritualist”, believing God reveals Himself in many world religions. He is an agnostic about the afterlife. I could go on. Just Google “Marcus Borg emergent church”. He has been speaking quite frequently with McClaren lately and Bruce McClaren writes very positively about him. The emerging Church’s post modern philosophy and slippery grasp on truth leaves it open to such people.
December 7, 2007 at 16:16
Hey Chris, no in my limited exposure I haven’t heard any emerging preacher deal with Gal 1:8 specifically, positively or negatively.
My personal interest/concern: one recent candidate for new pastor at my church aligned himself with the conversation, a big self-professed McLaren fan. As an elder and on the pastor search committee, I investigated a bit.
One example: McLaren said, “As an analogy [to the Bible], I often refer to the Wizard of Oz in my teaching. Does this mean that I believe Dorothy was a historical figure? No. It means that I accept the story of Oz as being part of our culture, and that I can use it to illustrate truth or provide analogies to truth.”
Analogously, our candidate said “If a scientist came along offering definite proof that Jonah never happened, I could still preach on it as truth – allegorical truth.”
Both statements trouble me. There is allegory in the Bible, but also history. A preacher/teacher is called on to properly distinguish.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church – offers other scathing analysis and troubling quotes. Admittedly it’s from a mostly critical standpoint, and I’d like to eventually form a more balanced and well-informed perspective. I’m sure there’s a baby in the emerging church bathwater, but it’s the bathwater that I’m concerned with.
December 9, 2007 at 21:27
I don’t know much about the whole emergent church. My own experience has been to be less dogmatic. Not adopting some of the stanch beliefs that get passed down arbitrarily.
I am big on personal study and pursuit of truth.
I actually really enjoy not having a lot of heavy opinions on non-essential topics. Its relieving to not have to find a point to argue with every Christian I meet.
December 29, 2007 at 19:26
Chris: Marcus Borg is a so-called “Jesus scholar” and is part of the “Jesus Seminar,” an extremely liberal group of “scholars” who argue that VERY little information in the Gospels actually go back to Jesus and, in fact, much of the material in the Gospels are AGAINST the historical Jesus’ real intentions. This information (made up LATER by the Gospel writers) includes Jesus being the Divine Messiah, his resurrection and his second coming. That’s right: Borg absolutely denies that the “real” Jesus ever talked about his second coming or his unique narture as the Son of God. This is NOT my opinion; this is in almost every Book Borg has ever written. SO, why in the world would Bruce M. want to identify with this “form” of “Christianity”????