Emerging Church- Part One

"Maturity: Yeah, when I was like you, I never doubted the Bible either. But I outgrew that."
thanks to teampyro.blogspot.com

This past weekend I gave a presentation at our state convention's Leadership Conference, critiquing the emergent church. Over the next several posts I'm going to share with you a somewhat abridged version of what I shared with them.

I'm going to, when possible, provide links to the original sources that I quoted during my talk. This will make it less work for me :) and more authoritative for you when you are talking to someone else and can quote "from the horses mouth" so to speak.

My prayer here is what I prayed at the conference: "God, may you be glorified in what is presented here and may You turn someone from error and towards truth. Amen."

After devoting myself to studying this topic, I feel like one of the most urgent tasks facing the church is to strongly refute this movement and to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, what they stand for- especially for our brothers and sisters who in their college years and who are being targeted by this movement.

Two books I highly recommend are: "Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck and "The Courage to Be Protestant" by David Wells.



(buy these or other books from monergism - using the links or this banner- and you get a great deal, cheap shipping, you are supporting a great ministry, you gain wisdom, and I get kick backs for leading you there to boot! Howzat for a good thing?)

----------

Okay, first, who and what is the emergent church?

I prefer to let them tell us rather than for us to define it for them. So I direct you over to the Emergent Village to read their history and what it is that they stand for.

They define "emergent" and tell a brief history here.

They list their values and practices here.

Now, granted, we must acknowledge what they say about how no one person speaks for the movement. They give a response to criticisms making this point here.

But, as DeYoung and Kluck point out:

"Fine but if seven men get together and respond to their critics in one article, they should at least admit that they not only share much common ground, but they are some of the lead influencers in the conversation."

Speaking of the word "conversation," David Wells has a humorous take on it that I posted earlier here.

Now, before you read what they have to say, you need to know that you must read their comments as if they were coming from a politician. I promise you, it is not always clear what the definition of "is" is. You will begin to see what I mean as these posts progress. But let's suffice it to say for now that the words "emerging," "dreaming," "imagining," "evolution," "trajectory" are not simply nice words to add color to their writing. There are meanings behind these words that are not readily apparent to those outside of their movement and that makes almost everything that they say slippery and dangerous.

A few quotes from their "Values and Practices" call for caution- my questions (which will be answered as we go) in italics:

• "Friendship" Because we firmly hold that living in reconciled friendship trumps traditional orthodoxies- indeed, orthodoxy requires reconciliation as a prerequisite. So, in other words "right belief" (orthodoxy) is less important than being friends. So what do you do about the "emergent Mormon"? At what point does orthodoxy matter. How far is too far?
  
• We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms- Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anabaptist. We practice "deep ecclesiology"- rather than favoring some forms of the church and critiquing and rejecting others, we see that every form of the church has both weaknesses and strengths, both liabilities and potential. "Deep ecclesiology" as opposed to what us knuckleheads practice which I suppose can only be termed superficial ecclesiology. Is it deep to accept conflicting, diametrically opposed views as both being equally valid? It may be fine to unite despite differences over the mode of baptism, but what about the definition of justification? How about the loss of salvation and what that implies about the work Christ accomplished on the cross? Again, how far is too far?
  
• To be actively and positively involved in a local congregation, while maintaining open definitions of "church" and "congregation." "Open definitions"- how do you define that? How open- and is there a limit?
  
• We identify ourselves as members of this growing, global, generative and non-exclusive frienship. We welcome others into this friendship as well. What do you mean by "generative"? What do you mean by "non-exclusive"? Do you welcome non-Christians into your fellowship as members as well?
  

Now, don't worry. If you have read this and are still wondering what the fuss is all about, stay with me, you will see in short order why I think they should be, not only avoided, but spoken out against.

But, for now, this was enough to digest.

We have seen what they say that they are "for." Next time, we'll look at what they are "against." And, as a protest movement, you will likely actually find that you agree with most of what they say. And that, of course, is their appeal.

It is not their complaints that are the problem, it is their solutions that are so off base.