Brandon has briefly discussed studying the early Evangelical movement and its lack of organization, this is similar to the current "Emerging" movement. As the label "Emerging" rolls off of someone's tongue I begin to cringe. This cringe is not an indication of my judgment it is because I don't really know what "Emerging" means, from one group to the next. It is the weakness of labels, I pastor a church that has carried the label "Community Church" for eighty years. I am asked is this a "seeker friendly" community church or is this a "Calvinist" community church and it goes on and on. So for us normal Christians to rise above labels or at least their abuse is a move toward real unity in the holy catholic church.
This morning I read an excellent post over at Parchment and Pen, click here to read. It is titled, "Would The Real Emerger Please Stand Up?" by re-writing some old rap lyrics he makes a good point. That is, we cannot really define the Emerging church as a unit, we cannot define their theology, their government, their political viewpoints or their philosophy. The aricle mentions John MacArthur and his criticisms of the Emergers, Michael points out that he groups the Emergers together and makes blanket statements. I don't think blanket statements can work on the Emergers and I don't think that we should quickly dismiss all of them either.
In trying to makes heads or tails of the Emerging movement in the above linked post Michael has provided us with an excellent chart with some leading Emerging names along with other big name Evangelicals.
One last thing, it is dissapointing that the American church cannot be more united in the name of Christ. It seems as though many who are seeking to show the world the real Jesus are doing it through the lense of subculture. We have skater churches, suit and tie (money) churches, political churches, yuppy churches, churches that emphasize rock, churches that emphasize hymns and "old time religion." Why is it that we can't unite for the sake of God's glory and the evangelizing of this country that we have lost. When I read the Gospels and Acts, I read of men who stood up in the public areas and proclaimed God's message, they found their identity in Christ and the Gospel. Their message was not cool or envogue, they were hated and killed. Are we really engaging our culture?
Friday, February 15, 2008
What is Emerging?
Posted by Chris at 1:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hello Chris,
Thanks for the link and your thoughts. It is difficult to define a young movement like "emerging." Evangelicalism, especially the nineteenth century American form of it was similar in that it applied to a wide swath of views that did not agree. Likewise, if one were to chart these historical evangelicals, some would be historically orthodox while others would not.
I think that emerging is another manifestation of the evangelical protest against a Christianity that's not Christian enough. However, the protest is now against what evangelicalism became--its institutionalized form that is rigid, orthodox, conservative, etc. Those who protest against it are drawn to other things including historical forms of Christianity and the ancient denominations and their practices.
This movement draws many who are yearning for real Christianity and think they can find it in the emerging movement. The young stage of a movement is nearly magical. A door is open when everything seems possible. This door will close as institutionalism comes and leaders emerge and the dreaded hierarchy ensues.
I could be wrong as this is quite pessimistic, but this is what I think history has taught us about movements.
Ironically, your last paragraph is a protest and perhaps shows your "emerging" side.
Thanks for pointing out the truth about my last paragraph, you agree?
I've been reading Don Carson's book "Searching for God Knows What?" and so far it is a book about God knows what. And I guess that is my main beef with some of these guys, it is their lack of systematic theology. Not all of them are this way and that is what is confusing. I get calls about people reading this and that "emerging" book or going to this "emerging" church and would I "approve?" And my fear is that I don't want to fall into a habit of overstatements and miscategorization, I dearly love men like MacArthur and Sproul but I think they say too much negative about guys who fall inside the boundaries of what is orthodox.
For me the bottom line is are they getting the Gospel right? And from what I can tell, some are and some are not.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Peace
Oh and I think your thoughts are right on, as pessimistic as they may be I have the same sort of thoughts. Basically the same has been true with much of Evangelicalism. I have not done my church history homework enough to prove this but I suspect at the time of the Protestant Reformation there was a similar "magical" feeling and disorganization. After all they wanted every man to have the Word of God, think about the ununiformity that has ocurred in the last 500 years due to that action. The Roman Catholics were right about that.
Great thoughts guys. I have no idea who you may lump into this "emerging" soup and who you see as outside of it. But, a couple worth while reads would be Mark Driscoll's "Confessions of a Missional Church Pastor" (or something like that - I don't currently have it in my possession to check the title) and D.A. Carson's "Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church." Driscoll draws a distinction between the "Emerging" and "Emergent" church movements in an effort to distance himself from guys like McLaren. A necessary distinction, I might add. Driscoll’s type are all about systematic, orthodox theology and consistently recommend books by the likes of Grudem, Piper, D.A. Carson, and the puritans. I say all that because D.A. Carson's book, while fantastic in many regards, has a drastic flaw in that it lumps guys as diverse as Driscoll, McLaren, and Bell all in the same pot. There is a huge difference and we need to be very careful in understanding what that difference is. It is the difference between orthodox and heresy, right and wrong, truth and error. Some of these guys have a lot to teach us while others should stop calling what they teach “Christian.”
My 2 cents.
Hi Eli,
You have picked up on the flaw that bothers me, Driscoll, in my opinion is okay, I don't appreciate the cussing but his theology is orthodox. He wrote a book called "Vintage Jesus" with a professor here named Gerry Breshears, the book should be interesting.
Post a Comment