Showing posts with label emergent theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emergent theology. Show all posts

2.06.2008

my state of the emerging church address

[The following is a synopsis the emerging church as whole as I've observed the past two years. Some of this is redundant, and material that I've stated in the past. After this article, I am taking a moratorium on the topic for a bit to focus more on how I can be more like my Lord and Savior, King Jesus. I will continue to stand for what I feel to be the truth, but I'm not looking for an argument. May Jesus be lifted High!]

The emerging church is one those topics that seems to always find its way onto the table of discussions in bloggerdum and the likes of any good seminarian lunch table. It’s one of those subjects in which everyone thinks they know “something” which usually ends up with a synopsis that is based either entirely on hearsay or a secondary source in which one has already nailed their coffin shut with biases. I’m not claiming to be an expert on the topic at hand; however, I have been involved in a church plant this past year that would be considered emerging. It was part of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network which is considered to be the premier network that would be deemed emerging. I’ve personally attended two of their boot camps, one in Seattle at Mars Hill Church, and the other in Raleigh at Vintage 21. I am speaking as a voice that has seen the emerging church from the inside and the outside, the good and the bad. So, my first attempt will be to define the emerging church.

The term emerging was originally coined by Dan Kimball, who published a book on the topic a few years back. When you hear the word “emerging”, in the basic sense, it typically refers to a church that employs a philosophy of ministry and/or methodology that calls for the church to be constantly emerging in and with the culture it has been placed. In a general sense the term encompasses a very broad umbrella of movements within movements. The first mistake anyone can make is to assume that all “emerging” churches consists of far left, post-modern, beer-drinking, square-glasses, goatee sporting, pastors who sit in a circle, light candles, and question and discuss the validity and value of such topics as the virgin birth, penal substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, the deity of Christ and anything that the majority of the Christian faith would adhere to as orthodoxy. Although such things do exist in some circles, you cannot assume that all emerging churches adhere to the same practices and beliefs. For example, there are many churches that would consider themselves independent, fundamental, and Baptist and adhere to a King James only philosophy. That doesn’t mean that all independent, fundamental, Baptist churches are King James only in the least. So, when viewing the emerging church or any movement for that matter, you must be wary of reductionism which will result in a view that is reduced based on the assessment of only one or two books or a lecture from a favorite theologian or pastor.

Another mistake I’ve observed is assuming “emerging” and “emergent” are synonymous and interchangeable. There is a HUGE difference that must be differentiated between the two. Most churches and individuals that would consider themselves “emergent” would be considered an emerging church. However, there is a huge stream within the emerging church which is not “emergent”. The term “emergent” represents a theological framework which employs a post-modern epistemology and a trajectory theology. To the “emergent”, they view theology as something that is dynamic and changing with time and culture. God knew that culture and times would change, so he set it in motion or on a trajectory theology giving man the ability to dictate what message best suits the times. So, basically, human reasoning, evolution, and even integrated spirituality (aka neo-paganism and new age) are all fair game in building our theological framework. What it amounts to is a man-centered, culture driven theology in which a post-modern epistemology is employed to be the lens through which the entirety of life is to be viewed and filtered.

Many individuals view emergent theology as a danger and rightfully so. However, I do not believe that it is a movement that will last simply because the whole foundation is built on speculation which results in relativism and fear of taking a stand for any thing absolute. I’ve written at greater length in the past about how the “emergent” movement is eerily similar to the Gnostics of early Christianity in which they attempted to elevate Christian theology and doctrine to that of pagan philosophy. I believe Tertullian was right when he shouted that heresy is prompted by philosophy. He would go on to say that “we have no need of curiosity reaching beyond Christ Jesus. When we believe, we need nothing further than to believe. Search that you may believe; then stop!” There are certain facets of Christianity that must simply be accepted by faith. We cannot know everything there is to know about God. It is nothing more than self-righteous pride and arrogance to place human reasoning/philosophy on the same level of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present God. When God speaks, you listen! One need only to go back to the garden to see that what would ultimately lead to the fall began with a conversation and questioning what God had said. There is nothing good that can come out of questioning whether or not God meant what He said. He has spoken and revealed Himself in and through Jesus, whose life is recorded in the Bible. We need only to look to Jesus to see God.

I was privileged to be a part of an emerging church that boldly proclaimed the Gospel, stood for the authority of Scripture, preached through the Bible expositorily, but at the same time saw a need for contextualization to a culture and city in which we had been called. Thus, the term “missional” comes into play. What does it mean to be a “missional” church? Being missional basically means being intentional about proclaiming and living the Gospel out within the culture/city the church exists. A missional church would operate from a Jesus-centered, Gospel driven theology in which the Bible is the lens through which the entirety of life is to be viewed and filtered including culture. It operates from the premise that God is a sending God, a missional God who has always set apart individuals (e.g. Abraham/disciples) and entities (e.g. Israel/Church) to be salt (preservation) and light (illumination) to the unbelieving world. It acknowledges that the Gospel is a timeless message, but requires timely methods to use the tools of culture to contextualize the truth of the Gospel (c.f. Acts 17). It operates under the tension of remaining biblically faithful but being culturally fruitful.

What concerns me about the church at large is that most believers do not embrace the Gospel as a lifestyle in which we truly heed calling as ambassadors of Christ. Most churches are guilty of reductionism in which evangelism is merely another program or department. I agree with John Armstrong when he says that “the place we must begin to counteract this reductionism is in seeing that our mission is not merely an activity of the Church, but rather that the Church exists for mission. Mission is the result of God's activity within the world and that mission is to restore and heal creation. The Church is a community of the redeemed and exists to serve that mission. This is the meaning of John 20:21. God is a missionary God and we, as his people, are a sent people. The Church is not the purpose of the gospel, or even the goal of the gospel. The Church is the instrument and witness of the gospel. Only when we get this right will be begin to be the community that God intended for us to be.” ( “How Reductionism Impacts Evangelism” http://www.theresurgence.com/john_armstrong_2007_how_reductionism_impacts_evangelism [Accessed on 10 November 2007])

If the church is to truly heed the call to be missional, believers must realize their calling and what they’ve been commissioned to do. Christ gave us a commission to go into all the world and make disciples. If you are a believer, this is your duty this side of eternity. It encompasses every area of your life and you are responsible to represent Christ in such a way that is conducive to making disciples. Being missional is a lifestyle. It’s allowing those around you to take a peek into the life of someone who is committed to something bigger and greater than anything anyone could ever imagine on this earth. Only when you recognize this can you truly take every opportunity and seek to transform these moments into something that will last an eternity. This ultimately requires commitment. But let’s face it! You choose to be committed to something/someone you believe in. If you really love someone, you will choose to sacrifice and take risks that you would not typically take. I believe that you can only be “missional” if you first truly recognize your calling and commission, then ultimately fall in love with what God has given you to do. In this sense I do believe that the church should be emerging to contextualize the Gospel to the cultures within which we are placed and called without compromising the truth or the character of the Gospel.

Are you passionate about the Gospel? When you are passionate about something or someone people will take notice. When people take notice, they will see that there is something different about the way in which you live. They will begin to dig and dive into your life to see where this vitality is coming from. This is what living a missional life is all about. Taking those opportunities and sharing Christ with those who would never dream about picking up a Bible or walking into a church building. When you have an assembly of believers that recognize their calling, accept their commission, and make a commitment to truly sacrifice and live passionately for the person they want to become (Jesus) by yielding to the Spirit, God can and will use His church to reach far more people than we ever dreamed imaginable.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that every stream within the emerging church is biblical or effective. At the same time, I do believe that there are many churches within the movement that are biblically faithful, culturally fruitful, resulting in many converts who have embraced the Gospel and are now our brothers and sisters in Christ. As a result, I hope that we can at least rejoice on this point. So, I don’t expect you to agree with me on every aspect, but as one who has seen the good, the bad; experienced from within and stood as an observer outside; I thank God that there are passionate people within the emerging church who are living a life that is Jesus-centered and Gospel-driven. Nothing more, nothing less. May Jesus be lifted High!

11.10.2007

emergent v. emerging

There is much confusion that abounds today involving the emergent and emerging church. Some have little or no understanding of the movements and assume that the term emergent and emerging are all the same. However, there is a vast difference between the two. I personally am a part of the "emerging" church which basically encompasses a philosophy of ministry in which we embrace the importance of contextualizing the Gospel and making it relevant to the ever changing culture in which we have been placed for such a time as this. However, we hold fast to the unchanging truth of the Gospel and view theology as something that is static and unchanging with time and culture. The tension lies in the fact that we have a timeless message in the Gospel that requires timely methods to continually contextualize and make the Gospel relevant to the lives of an ever changing culture. So, the church is and should be emerging in culture with the end goal of being biblically faithful, yet culturally fruitful.

The "emergent" church on the other hand stems out of a post-modern world view and employs a post-modern epistemology. Epistemology may be defined as a philosophy which drives the way in which one views and interprets knowledge. If one is to be biblically faithful and culturally fruitful, it is imperative that you operate from a biblical epistemology. The Bible teaches a Jesus-centered, Gospel driven epistemology in which the Scripture is the lens through which the entirety of life is to be viewed and interpreted including culture. The emergent church operates on the basis of a post-modern epistemology in which they teach a man-centered, culture driven epistemology in which culture is the lens through which the entirety of life is to be viewed and interpreted including the Bible. They see theology as something that is dynamic and changing with time and culture. They also employ a "trajectory" theology in which they believe God simply set in motion theology knowing that culture would change and that our faith is ever "evolving".

I hope that in this brief synopsis that you can see there is a vast difference in the two. One employs and teaches a timeless Gospel that it is biblically faithful and seeks to be culturally fruitful (e.g. Acts 17) and the other teaches a pseudo-false Gospel in which man is the center focus and culture is the driving force or power.

To be blunt, I feel the "emergent" camp is teaching heresy and have abandoned the Gospel altogether. The very definition of idolatry is removing God/Jesus from His proper place of central focus and replacing that focus with someone or something else. The instant that we remove Christ and His completed work on the cross we become guilty of idolatry.

Paul says in 2 Corinthians 15:3-4 that "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.." The Gospel is of "first" importance. There is nothing MORE established in doctrine or principle than the Gospel! If you shift your focus from the Gospel to "anything" you are obviously replacing it with something else. This is also known as "idolatry". The "emergent" camp is teaching a "false-gospel" in which man and culture hold the key to unlocking and interpreting the Bible in the "evolution" of our faith.

My friend and member of this group Josh Glidden recently wrote on his blog about this very issue. He rightfully cites Hebrews 5:11-14:

"About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."

I feel the "emergent" camp is a movement that will pass simply based on the fact they don't have a foundation on which their entire theological framework is built. For them to define anything or take a position on any issue or doctrine would go against the post-modern epistemology in which they employ. However, there are those within the "emerging" church that do wish to build their theological framwork on the the foundation of Scripture in which we uphold as our final authority by which all doctrine and positions are drawn and filtered.

The "emergent" camp would consider themselves part of the "emerging" church as well, but there are as many as three streams within the "emerging" church. However, beyond attempting to make the Gospel relevant the "emergent" stream are revisionists as well They are attempting to redefine the Gospel and replaced Jesus and his completed work on the Cross revealed in Scriputure and elevated man and culture as the ultimate authority in life.

I would like to encourage each of you to be vigilant and take the time to examine the Gospel and really stand firm on the Gospel and never cave to man and his philosophy. The Bible has determined our world view and all "philosophy" should be drawn and built on the solid foundation of Scripture with Jesus and the Cross maintaining our focus. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)


Some key proponent of the "emergent" camp of theology include the likes of Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with their work, but they are gifted men and tend to be more "subtle" than "blunt". Be cautious and weigh everything with Scripture (Acts 17:11-12 e.g. Bereans).

Resources:

For a great lecture on the emerging church, listen to Mark Driscoll at this link:
http://www.sebts.edu/chapel/chapelMessages.cfm
It's on the third page on the date of September 21, 2007.

Also for a good example of "emergent" thought check out Josh's blog at:
http://joshuaglidden.blogspot.com/
Check out the article entitled "...often against people who are really onto something."