Wednesday
Nov242004
Theology and the emerging church
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 10:31PM
One of the charges I hear leveled against the emerging church is that it is weak on theology. Like every generalization, you can find examples of shaky theology that seem to prove the case. It's just as easy, though, to find examples of shaky theology within evangelicalism, for instance. That doesn't prove the case. A lot of the questions being asked by the emerging church are theological in nature. The primary concern is not how to cater the Gospel to make it more palatable. Quite the opposite. The concern is to understand where modernity might have obscured the Gospel. It's an attempt to see the Gospel through a different lens than that of modernity. You don't get more theological than trying to answer the question, "What is the Gospel?" That seems to me to be the primary question that's being asked. Everything else is gravy. Dan Kimball is an example of an emerging church pastor who is not ducking the theological issues. Dan says this in the latest issue of Preaching:
One week I talked about what was death in the Old Testament...It's somewhat like teaching a theology class. We're specifically going into word studies, we are hitting a lot of historical context. I think what people are looking for in our culture is depth, We talked about hell an entire night, so that's almost like the total anti-seeker model, you might say
Reader Comments (17)
The general impression to me Darryl its big on God's love and our responsibility to help out the poor and needy, but not too much talk about God's coming judgement or the call to repentance. We can just accept Jesus and not have to change. Again, that's my general impression and of course there are exceptions. I guess just like in the institutional church there can be a lot of criticism about what's happening and there are exceptions. Maybe we could get those exceptional emerging churches to talk to those exceptional institutional churches and we might just come to some common ground on which to build.
George: I agree that would be an excellent development. Maybe the traditional church could rave about some of the exceptional emerging churches as well. There is much common ground, I believe.
I'm the planter of a church in the GTA that is now just three years old. We are far from traditional, although our paradigm is probably more modern than it is po-mo, or "emerging". One thing is certain, because we were doing things outside the box, I know that the assumption by some within the traditional church was that we must be practicing some kind of "Christianity Lite" with flaky theology. Nothing could be further from the truth! I have never had to teach more diligently, prepare more thoroughly and think more carefully than I've had to at this plant. When people far from God (and lacking any biblical literacy or Christian "residue")start seeking spiritually, the teaching component goes way up. I do have one complaint, though, with the "emerging" church. In many (not all)there seems to be an attitude problem. The attitude says this: "We know how to do church right. We get it and you don't." It's okay to examine and critique the traditional church and the modern, contemporary church. But I hear and see a lot of unhelpful bashing of pastors and churches, who, in the minds of the elite, just don't get it. We'll see in the long run what happens in the emerging church culture (most of what's happening I am supportive of). But in the meantime, Willowcreek and Bill Hybels must be doing something right, some of the time!
"I do have one complaint, though, with the 'emerging' church. In many (not all)there seems to be an attitude problem. The attitude says this: 'We know how to do church right. We get it and you don't.'" Jim, you're absoultely right. I think this is starting to change, slowly. You're right on in diagnosing this as an issue.
Some things that I've noticed about the emerging church that really concerns me are: 1) Profanity. There's an emerging 'Pastor' proudly blogging right now that he uses the f-word and other profanity to reach people. His blog entries regularly include this type of language. This is terrible logic and slippery slope theology. 2) Relativism. In their attempt to reach the post-moderns, they themselves have have embraced post-modern thought. Everything is ok (except the tradition church and traditional theology), especially lifestyle issues. There seems to be a blurring of personal lifestyle before and after salvation. 3) Lack of Urgency for Salvation. They don't use the term 'saved' unless it's in a mocking kind of way. Do they even believe in Hell? Just some observations. I hope I'm wrong. Jacob.
Jacob: I hope you're wrong too. I know where you're coming from on each of these points, but I'm not sure they are representative of emerging types as a whole. I might post a response to this later. Thanks for getting me thinking.
On a related note and in light of a discussion on compromise (granted it was only one person disussing it) John MacArthur starts a new series on living an uncompromised life on his Grace to You radio ministry. It started today in the GTA area on WDCX 99.5 at 7:30am. Its on in the Vancouver area on KWPZ 106.5 at 10:30am. And for you Saskatchewan area readers its on somewhere there too, check out the Grace to You website for a listing near you. It promises to be a great challenging series of messages for all those of us who desire to experience God's power in our lives. Remember, God's power is not revealed in compromise. Check it out and have a great week.
I am the "jim" who posted an objection to a pastor's use of the "f-word" on his site. He had recently used the site to announce that he was starting an emerging, missional church. I'm no prude, nor am I naive. The church I planted has large numbers of attenders who use language like that and see no harm in it. I'm not shocked by it - we are deliberately trying to reach unchurched post-moderns. We have grown from 12 people to 400 people in 3 years. The vast majority of those who have come to Christ were previously not church attenders. I have never once found it neccessary to use the "f-word" to "relate" to them or to show that I am real and vulnerable. The pastor mentioned by Jacob is defending his use of vulgarity as a tool to reach the unchurched. Give me a break! I objected to his reasoning without once slandering him. Immediately he phoned his friends about the controversy and they have all attacked me (frequently with the use of the "f-word" and calling me an a-hole for my plea for decency). Out of 35 posts, only one blogger sided with my plea. If this is the emerging church, God help us all! Jim
I also have been in dialogue with emerging church pastors and not all but most use profanity and use it with post-modern missional conviction.
It seems to me that many of the emergent church people that dialogue on the net are "twenty something." That some are thin skinned, swear a lot and are prone to think in terms of "me right, you wrong" doesn't surprise me too much. Lord knows, I was a lot like that when I was their age. At least they are dialoging about and hopefully with God. Better to see the glass half full rather than half empty, I think. Experience comes first, wisdom comes much, much later. Still waiting...
Jim: I am a part of Jayson's house church. I personally am not comfortable with profanity on my website. I don't think it was wise for Jayson to use profanity either but I would like to correct you on a few points. 1) Jayson didn't call his friends. His friends just read his blog. 2) I believed that your comment "You do not need to use the f-word to reach people. What an incredibly ridiculous justification!" certainly insinuates some negative things about Jayson. 3) A lot of the people who commented aren't involved in the house church. 4) If you are going to call someone on a ethical or moral issue do it privately. I believe that is in keeping with Mat 18:16. If you do it in the comments you are just asking for a flame war. Jacob: I'd have to say that profanity is more common in my "emerging" church circles, than it is in my "established" church circles but even then it is only common around certain people. Relativism is very common. Especially by people hurt in church experiences. When the institution that claimed absolute truth doesn't live up its ideals people go through a crisis of faith. That which they trusted was deemed untrustworthy, and they become unsure of everything. I've seen it all too much, but I can't say I blame people for being a lot less sure of what they were of before. For me it tooks years but as I worked through it and I became very sure of some things, and the rest I'm content to leave in the unsure category. There is a great range of diversity among in thought of people in emerging churches. Among the leaders I've yet to see anyone that wasn't concerned about salvation. For me the issue of hte gospel and salvation is #1. I think modern evangelicalism has reduced the gospel and seriously weakened.
Actually, Leighton, he did call his friends. One of the more rude and prolific commentators (his good friend Matt), posted the following: "When he called me to tell me about this post and the controversy . . . " This is what prompted Matt to post comments repeatedly. Whether my comments "insinuate" something negative about Jayson is a matter of opinion, not fact. I never attacked Jayson as a person, nor did I ever need to SWEAR at him to make my point. Furthermore, when I posted that comment where I said it was a "ridiculous justification" to assert that the "F-word" was neccessary in order to communicate with unbelievers it was in response to someone elses comment (not Jayson's) that the use of the "f-word" demonstrated vulnerability and realness. I still believe it is the flimsiest logic to suggest that one needs to be profane in order to be real! I do agree with you, though that a number of people commented who are not involved in the house church. Does that excuse those who are? I will think about your Matthew 18 remarks. Frequently that's applied in a "just shoot the messenger" sense. Rather than own up to their own inappropriate words and behaviour, the trend on Jayson's site was to attack me as being some kind of judgmental arse. With this group, whenever you disagree or point out a valid criticism you are labelled a "judgmental hypocrite" who makes people "f-ing sick". As far as the Matthew 18 thing goes, I'm not sure the context is the same here at all. We could debate this. But the trend here has been to attack the dissenter rather than give much logical or contemplative thought to the point I was trying to make - that one doesn't need to be vulgar and profane to reach people. Also, Jay used a "public" site to post his comments (and expletives). He invites comment on that site. I commented. If you read my original post on his site, all it says is that I am dismayed as a fellow church planter that he used the f-word on the same site he used to announce the start of the new church. I follow up my brief expression of dismay by saying that I did not want to post anything else because I thought the venue might be inappropriate for a productive discussion of the issue. I invited him into a private dialog. Jayson and those close to him elected to debate it on the site rather than contact me privately as I had suggested in my very first post. Check it out. Leighton, I have visited your blog and visit Darryl's (and others regularly). I am usually the benficiary of some thoughtful and respectful discussion of a variety of issues. On some of the sites of the so-called emerging community I see mostly anger and rage against the established church and a total lack of respect for divergent viewpoints. I wonder if there is any truth to what I am saying . . . Jim
Jim: I'm sorry to hear about what happened at the other site. This type of thing is what makes me hate blogs sometimes. Hang in there - I appreciate you.
Jim, You make it sound like Jayson uses the F-word purposely as an evangelical tool when that is not the case at all. "Come see the swearing pastor!"... how rediculous. In fact that was the first occurance of that word in his blog and thanks to this whole thing Jayson has censored himself. I find that to be disheartening. If you wanted your dismay to be so private why did you post in the comments... why not email Jayson directly? Why use just as inflamatory words that don't happen to be considered curses to fuel a fight with people you've never met?
Ryan: It appears that both Jayson and Jim have been hurt through this. The thing is, it was completely unintentional on both sides. Yet both are hurt. I'm hoping both find healing; both are good guys. I don't want to play the blame game in the comments. That will just perpetuate the hurt.
Indeed... Upon rereading it I find myself wishing I had left out the second paragraph now.
Ryan, Darryl, et al: Seems to me our current discussion, both on this thread and Jayson's has moved beyond productivity. Both sides of the issue - myself included - have very passionate viewpoints and a deep concern for the church. In making my point, I concede that inflammatory statements were made. This is not particularly useful and was definitely not intended to hurt. Printed text often conveys views in a limited way and if we're already feeling a bit prickly - watch out! I for one am not interested in maintaining this dialog in its current tone. I do not consider Jayson to be my enemy at all. In fact, we probably have much more in common than our comments reveal. If we could all take a deep breath and start over, I'm certainly ready to. And I intend to express this to Jayson. Jim