Emergent, Emerging, and Evangelicals
- First, there's a difference between Emerging and Emergent and at times they can be the same. The term Emergent is closely connected to a philosophy or theology (for clarification see www.emergentvillage.org, An Emergent Theology For Emerging Churches by Ray Anderson, Relevant Magazine July/Aug. 2006 article "Missing the Point" by Peter Walker, Emergent manifesto edited by Doug Pagitt). The word Emerging can be used as a term for the movement, but it is more commonly used to describe churches connected with the twentysomething generation.
- Second, not all who claim to be a part of Emerging churches agree with Emergent theology.
- Third, many of these Emerging churches are very evangelical in their theology.
- Finally, those that hold to Emergent theology do not always agree with some in their own movement. That, claimed by some in the movement, is part of the beauty of Emergent. It is an on-going conversation.
Because of the ministry that I'm involved in, I get the opportunity to talk with those in the Emergent movement. The people that I talked with really do love the Lord and the Church. That's why I'm sadden when some in the Christian community condemn these brothers and sisters without trying to understand how they came to their belief. It tears my heart to see emails or blogs warning of the dangers of Emergent without investigating. I have some issues with some of their theology, but I'm not afraid to engage in a conversation about our faith. I may not agree with their reasons, but I still want to be a part of their journey in life. I learn from them, and they have some great truths that the Church needs to hear today.
So, the next time you read a blog, an article, or some letter that was emailed to you, stop before you put it away in your "against" file. Find out where that person got their information and do some research. Maybe you can start by taking someone who is a part of the Emergent group out for coffee. I hear they like domestic blends.
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Finally!! I can't tell you how good it is to hear an educated voice on this topic. Well put, Bob. I'll look forward to reading your blog.
BOB:
What you and the emerging/ent community seem to miss is this: nowhere in scripture, through the teaching of Jesus or the apostles, do we find any principle whatsoever to tolerate, accept, or otherwise attempt to find good bits among false teachers. In fact, we find just the opposite sentiment expressed in 1st & 2nd Thess., Jude, and 1st & 2nd Timothy, for example, and in words the emergents would describe as being so un-missional, so detrimental to forming "community". For that matter, all of Jesus' teachings about hell and sin and the narrow path are likewise considered pretty uncool, politically incorrect, and irrelevant in a postmodern age; after all, we must give the twenty and thirty-somethings of the 21st century what they want right? Such accomodation is much more important that giving them the true gospel (one that must begin with our need for a savior, which means including the doctrines of hell and sin, not JUST peace and love because without the former, the latter means nothing right). However, you are promoting the idea here that we need to look for the good bits among falsehood by first going through that old song and dance about distinguishing the suffixes ent or ing. Please, let's be serious and cut through the nonsense of splitting hairs between terms. The larger question is this: why are professing followers of Jesus Christ intermingling the truth of the gospel with a movement that you yourself in this post have identified as containg error? In fact, the word error is a huge understatement in light of the downright heresy and blasphemy against God from many key players in this movement. Again, if this exists within the movement at large, then why on earth would true followers of Christ want any association with it? Perhaps because being "missional" for the world means we Christians get to be more indulgent in the world ourselves? When we adopt emering/ent thinking, then we can also put to rest those old-fashioned and uncomfortable notions that God desires our desire for personal holiness through sanctification.
I appreciate your comments. The post was not written in a defense of the Emergent movement. What I was speaking on was the way some have confussed Emergent w/ Emerging. There are many who are in Emerging churches (basically, a term for a church that is led and compiled of twenty-somethings)who are very true to Scripture. I was writing about those who claim that these brothers and sisters are Emergent, which they may be or may not be. There can be a difference between Emergent and those that say they go to an "emerging" church. There are many out in the blog-shere who do nothing but write comments to posts w/out ever investigating the facts for themselves. So, I wrote the post to clarify some things.
As far as the other statment you made...I think I understnd what you were saying. I do not agree with the main views of Emergent but there are some things that I see as Scriptural (like their passion to reach the world for Christ). Some Emergent people are searching to bring Jesus into their world and I have had great conversations with them. I do believe that they are in error and I'll state that, but many have found the modern church to be very unChrist-like. Maybe that is true or not but they've have felt rejected by the Church. I believe that they feel they have found a movement that reflects Jesus they way He should be seen. Again, I don't agree with that but in my conversations I try to share that they don't have to leave the Jesus of Scripture in order to find what they are looking for. I think my post was meant to address those issues. I'm not defending Emergent leaders (Pagit, Jones, Bell, etc...) but was making a comment about those that attack searching believers through random writings or conversations.
Thanks for your comments. They are always welcome. You can read a more recent post on Emergent that came on May 11th.
BOB:
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. However, it still rings with a tone of too much accomodation, both of the emergents and of the popstmodern generation who want everything "their way" quite frankly. While there are far too many social factors that have shaped this generation to discuss here at length (i.e. the role of mass media, the number of broken homes, the general laziness/apathy that characterizes this generation, and the demands of entitlement and comfort, etc.), these are manifestations of an ideology--postmodern ideology--which, at its core, is rooted in rebellion and relativism. How do we accomodate rebellion?? So much of this began in the sixties and moved on through generation X, Y, and whatever the letter is for the youngest youth today. I'm not talking only about what is happening in the church, as I see it among the pagan, lost masses in community colleges where I teach. In my opinion, it is within this setting that one really sees the apathetic, pathetic, and tragic manifestations of a postmodernist worldview. Make no mistake: the key leaders in the emergent church are hardline postmodernists, and having studied this particular ism for many years before the ec ever came along (and even embraced it in grad school for several years as a prodigal), it absolutely cannot be intermingled with Christianity! It's author is Satan himself, as it is the spirit of this age! What on earth are professing Christians doing when they become postmoderns themselves, or when they make the ridiculous attempts at accomodating it's demands and quasi-standards. It embraces relativism, a position from which nothing certain needs to be accepted. It has done a number on the structure of academia, which has its origins with Christian men of God who formed the first universities, as academic rigor is all but lost and the postmodern youth culture expects media-modeled entertainment in the classroom if they are to give the instructor/teacher the "privilege" of their presence. When they decide for themselves how well they performed, they demand grade changes like they are at a customer service counter in the mall. The point in this illustration? Postmoderns want a Jesus/God and an (emerging) church that meets their needs, that is shaped around their standards, that enetertains them, that requires nothing from them. The older postmoderns (many of whom are has-been hippies of the Berkeley sixties) want a Jesus/God that is just as "tolerant" and pluralistic as the media they watch and read. They want "relevance" at any price. Presto...the emerging/ent church comes along, complete with denials of hell and heaven and a narrow path that leads to life etc. (all that fire & brimstone stuff that is just so uncool). They have leaders who attend conferences in Seattle with the Dalai Lama, calling him "his holiness" and never declaring anything that rings of their conviction that Christianity is exclusively right and true and all other beliefs are wrong (very politically incorrect). Why? Because they do not have such convictions, and the absence of such convictions brings into serious question whether they are believers at all. Again, with so much excrement within a worldview or church movement, why on earth shall any of it be accomodated? What the world needs is the true gospel, the one that begins with man's condition on his way to a real hell, preached directly and without compromise. Those who reject it are rejecting truth, just as Jesus said those who love darkness would do. So, when we say are emergents are trying to reach people for the gospel too, or for Jesus, my question is this: which gospel? Which Jesus?
» Post a Comment