The First Step Toward a Solution

This paper is already very long and I am fearful that rushing to a solution will not do justice to a topic that needs much more consideration. Just coming to an understanding of what EC is and where it is going is difficult enough without heaping on a bunch of proposed solutions. Perhaps time and circumstance will avail themselves for more to be written on this in the future. For now, I would like to propose one simple solution.

Carla Rolfe recently posted a simple question on the emergentNo blog:

Is the written word of God, for you, in your life as a believer, the final authority in all matters of your faith, and practice? This is a straightforward question that simply requires a yes or no answer. You may feel free however to expound on your answer, if you like.

One sample answer she received read like this:

I'll take a shot at that Carla. God is the final authority in my life. I can't confine to the bible because he clearly is so much bigger than the bible itself and of course he is God and can really do as he pleases. The bible is not the beginning and end of God.

To which Carla responded:

So then your answer to this question: “Is the written word of God, for you, in your life as a believer, the final authority in all matters of your faith, and practice?” would be NO, correct? Just trying to establish some basics here.

The reply:

I suppose it would. The bible is not the final authority in my life God is. Do you believe that God can only do what is mentioned in the bible?[1]

I am neither qualified nor do I particularly desire to get into a debate of epistemology, but this little exchange seems to typify what is the essential flaw I observe in EC. After reading all the blogs and talking with relatives and friends embracing EC at various levels, I am often left with the impression that the Bible, although given a respectful nod, just doesn’t really matter that much anymore (at least in practice). The EC Christian wants his Bible – but tradition, listening to others, expressing himself in art, feeding the poor, and having conversations about what he thinks about God, are just as important to him, if not more so. In fact, this freedom from an authoritative text is really the best thing that has ever happened to him![2]

Thus, Sola Scriptura, the way it is portrayed in EC circles, is a hated enemy; the kind of club that power hungry despots use to stay in command.[3] Much like their Open Theist cousins, their view of God is too flexible to allow for Him to be “bound” by His own revelation. Of course I do not believe this is an accurate portrayal of the doctrine of Scripture Alone – just as inaccurate as most EC portrayals of reformed theology, conservative church life, true preaching, social conservatism and a bundle of other things! But with this pre-supposition firmly in place, along with all the “outs” used to avoid real conversation, I wonder if we will ever convince an EC Christian otherwise?

To be blunt, I think that I am pastoring a church that is, in many respects, what EC wants: relevant. I do not see taking place in my fellowship the kind of critiques and generalizations that are most often levelled by EC at conservative, reformed evangelicals. We began with a Bible study of 6 Christians and now find well over 100 in attendance. We started meeting in homes and now meet (quite contentedly and purposefully!) in a gymnasium. I preach for over 50 minutes twice a Sunday and people keep asking for more. We have seen people saved by God! We have baptized them. Some have moved on from us – most under good circumstances. Some have been disciplined and restored to full fellowship.

Our men meet together and talk openly concerning their battles with sin and who they want to be in the Lord. The ladies do the same. Our kids love to come to church on Sundays and Wednesdays. The stinking teenagers sit in the front row and are usually the last to leave – so many good questions! Some of our strongest leaders are “college and career” aged young men. We sing old hymns, and new songs with a 5 piece band. We recite ancient creeds and study church history. We write new songs. We pray every week, joyfully, together for nearly an hour (of prayer, not Bible study!). Members show up early and pray on Sundays for the Lord’s blessing on our services.

We evangelize our families and friends and strangers and some of the millions of people from all over the world that the Lord has brought to our city. We actually tell them they are lost and must repent and believe on Jesus. We have three men in seminary training to be pastors. We are trying to plant another church downtown Toronto by 2009. The Lord has given us more money than we need. We are growing slowly and steadily, month by month, in a cultural context that is antagonistic, at best, to the Gospel. And we have all kinds of problems and shortcomings and faults and sins that need to be fixed and Lord willing, one day, will be. And I am telling you all of this to say that not once, for one second, would we in any fashion consider ourselves to be emerging out of anything! If you pinned us down we would say we are trying to be submergent – into the Truth of the Bible.

So, even though there might be a lot of overlap in appearance between EC and us in how we “do” church, there remains this one great difference: what we do and how we do it is determined by the Word of God, the Bible. The EC leaders I have read cannot say the same thing. It is “the Word and...” That means the final authority in determining what is good and what is bad is intuition, not revelation.[4] The Bible is not what directs, forms and shapes EC. And without this anchor, that ship will float wherever the prevailing winds of the day choose to blow.

But the Bible is enough. The Bible is more than enough!

For the Bible tells us to pray and preach and study and evangelize and talk to children and love teenagers and give our money away and plant churches and teach one another and hold each other accountable and fellowship with each other and love each other and deal with sin. And even though there remains so much more to do, my land, just to do these things reasonably well is something quite commendable![5] And when I look around at sister churches here in Canada I see churches that are different in a thousand ways from us and yet foundationally the same; that one common denominator being a firm commitment to the Word of God as a final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

It is not very fancy or novel or cutting edge. It doesn’t require the creation of new words or new forms or new ways. It is all rather humbling... and absolutely relevant. We pray; preach, worship, love and let God decide if it will be blessing or trials. As much as EC may want to set up a relevant, failsafe method of reaching this culture, I am happy to put my trust in a relevant, failsafe God. He will do as He pleases and it will be both right and good.

The truth is that a few, a very few, thoughtful men, whose thinking consists in negation from first to last, and whose minds are tortured with a chronic twist or curve, which turns them into intellectual notes of interrogation, have laid the basis of this system; these few honest doubters have been joined by a larger band who are simply restless; and these again by men who are inimical to the spirit and the truths of Scripture, and together they have formed a coterie, and called themselves the leaders of the thought of the age. They have a following, it is true; but of whom does it consist?

When a prophet comes forward he must speak as from the Lord, and if he cannot do that, let him go back to his bed. It is quite certain, dear friends, that now or never we must be decided, because the age is manifestly drifting. You cannot watch for twelve months without seeing how it is going down the tide; the anchors are pulled up, and the vessel is floating to destruction. It is drifting now, as near as I can tell you, south-east, and is nearing Cape Vatican, and if it drives much further in that direction it will be on the rocks of the Roman reef. We must get aboard her, and connect her with the glorious steam-tug of gospel truth, and drag her back. I should be glad if I could take her round by Cape Calvin, right up into the Bay of Calvary, and anchor her in the fair haven which is close over by the cross. God grant us grace to do it. We must have a strong hand, and have our steam well up, and defy the current; and so by God's grace we shall both save this age and the generations yet to come.[6]

“You may spoil the gospel by substitution. You have only to withdraw from the eyes of the sinner the grand object which the Bible proposes to faith--Jesus Christ--and to substitute another object in His place… and the mischief is done.

“You may spoil the gospel by addition. You have only to add to Christ, the grand object of faith, some other objects as equally worthy of honor, and the mischief is done.

“You may spoil the gospel by disproportion. You have only to attach an exaggerated importance to the secondary things of Christianity, and a diminished importance to the first things, and the mischief is done.

“Lastly, but not least, you may completely spoil the gospel by confused and contradictory directions… Confused and disorderly statements about Christianity are almost as bad as no statement at all. Religion of this sort is not evangelical.”[7]

---

[1] The whole exchange can be found here http://emergentno.blogspot.com/2006/04/sola-scriptura-and-ecm-where-do-you.html. Emphasis original.

[2] Note these comments by Rob Bell and his wife from a recent Christianity Today interview: “The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—‘discovering the Bible as a human product,’ as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. ‘The Bible is still in the center for us,’ Rob says, ‘but it's a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.’

‘I grew up thinking that we've figured out the Bible," Kristen says, "that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again—like life used to be black and white, and now it's in color.’ For more of this see Appendix Four or http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/12.36.html Accessed on April 4, 2006.

[3] “In the recent past we generally began our apologetic by arguing for the Bible’s authority, then used the Bible to prove our other points. In the future we’ll present the Bible less like evidence in a court case and more like works of art in an art gallery. The Bible will become valuable not for what it proves, but for what it reveals.” Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: YS/Zondervan, 2003) 101. This quote is of McLaren.

[4] ...intuition that is often cloaked in spiritual language. Regardless of the vocabulary, it is still intuition – listening to the gut to affirm what is true and what ought to be done.

[5] It also warns us not to do a lot of things!

[6] Excerpts taken from “The Need of Decision for the Truth.” A College Address, by C. H. Spurgeon first published in the March 1874 Sword and Trowel Magazine and available online at http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/truth.htm. Also, see more quotes from this timely sermon in Appendix 3.

[7] J. C. Ryle as quoted by C. J. Mahaney on April 7, 2006 at http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/gospel/index.html.

Why Such Momentum and Where is it Leading?

Before I attempt an evaluation of EC, one question begs to be answered: Why is EC so popular? All these blogs and websites give the impression that EC is taking over the world. Okay, that is alarmist, but it is clear that the movement is gaining momentum. Why is this? Carson writes:

...one rea­son why the movement has mushroomed so quickly is that it is bringing to focus a lot of hazy perceptions already widely circulating in the culture. It is articulating crisply and polemically what many pastors and others were already beginning to think, even though they did not enjoy—until the lead­ers of this movement came along—any champions who put their amor­phous malaise into perspective.

So it is not surprising that many books and articles that do not iden­tify themselves as part of the emerging church movement nevertheless share its core values and thus belong to it without the label.[1]

If Carson is correct (and I think he is) then it is all the more urgent we begin to read and study EC if we are going to effectively shepherd the sheep God has entrusted to us.[2]

Back in 1965, Martin Lloyd Jones preached this during a sermon on Romans 12 in which he identified those falling into error in his own generation:

So in the same lazy way they divide up the Scriptures in a manner that should never be done. Scripture, being the Word of God, is to be read right through, because, of course, it is a whole and we must neither detract from it nor add to it. You can detract from the Scripture by ignoring certain passages, or by saying, ‘This is all that matters in Scripture.’ Many people are teaching that at the present time. Some, for example, simply concentrate on our Lord’s moral teaching, as if the whole of the Bible were just the Sermon on the Mount. But there are others who say, ‘This has nothing to do with us now.’ So they start in certain epistles and just concentrate on bits of them, and that is equally wrong.[3]

In many ways there is nothing new in Emergent. It is clear that McLaren and most Revisionists are heading the way of old liberalism, stressing the moral teachings of Jesus over the rest of the Scripture.[4] His new book spends several chapters explaining the Sermon on the Mount in a way that makes the focus of the Christian life this world, not the next.[5] Like in years gone by, EC is now widening their circle to exclude most evangelicals and include other religions. Talks and summits have been and will continue to take place and one expects the envelope to be pushed with each new round of meetings.

Some who began in the movement are in full reverse out; having come to see where the leading lights are going they are doing all they can to pull up and distance themselves from anything with the word emergent on it. Still others will hear of these things for the first time and think they are the best news since sliced bread.

It can be unfair to judge a movement now based on where you think it is going in the future, but the future is here for EC and makes those predictions more a reality than a guess.

In an old cathedral in London, in a space with no stage and no chairs, a cross-shaped light is projected over the young people lying on the red carpet. A soundscape of soft chants fills the sanctuary, creating a soothing audio wallpaper. A video loop on one of the projection screens shows first a graceful male dancer and then a computer-generated image of a slowly rotating crown of thorns. Poetry appears under the thorns: "God-man, your soul is overwhelmed to the point of death."

Two girls move through the center of the sanctuary -- one slowly, the other running to the cross where she is lifted up by the others and rotated slowly, then lowered to the floor. Both girls turn and invite the worshippers to come forward and receive the communion elements.

This is a safe place, a sanctuary for seekers who will not be "reached" or "got at." It is also a gallery for artists who deem their work too precious to be colonized into a preacher's sermon. It is a holy space, where the experience of God and each other is not preprogrammed but open to the mysterious interruptions of a God who still speaks.

This is what the English call alternative worship, or "alt.worship." Tonight at the Vaux, worship is curated (not led) by Andy Thornton. Next month someone else will be calling the people to hand over fresh art that reflects the ups and downs of the full human experience. This art will be displayed in a way that makes it possible for every participant to experience God at his or her own pace. The curator can plan that journey to a certain point, but there is an element of the mysterious the curator cannot control.

In a way, alt.worship is a return to a simple New Testament pattern of worship, where one offers a song and another a word. And it is a return to the Old Testament worship pattern of multimedia, multisensory worship.

Simplicity and complexity. Premodern and postmodern.[6]

---

[1] Conversant, 13.

[2] Carson also writes: “From these diverse tendencies I infer that the emerging church move­ment is probably slightly smaller than some of its leaders think, and per­haps also substantially larger than some of its leaders think.” Conversant 13.

[3] Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: Volume 12 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000) 5

[4] A kind of, “I’ll take Jesus over Paul” theology with all sorts of disclaimers to say that is not really what they are doing. For instance: “We retained Jesus as Savior but promoted the apostle Paul (or someone else) to Lord and Teacher. (Even as Savior, though, we limited Jesus to saving us from hell, which explains why we have had comparatively little interest in his saving us from greed, gossip, prejudice, violence, isolation, carelessness about the poor or the planet, hurry, hatred, envy, anger, or pride.)” Orthodoxy, 86. Or in this example: McLaren asks a friend who has just repudiated his defense of the Gospel as being justification by grace through faith as found in places like Romans: “‘Well, then, what would you say the gospel is, if it’s not that?’ I was preparing myself for heresy, not for enlightenment, since I was quite confident in my quotations from Paul. ‘The kingdom of God is at hand. That was Jesus’ message. Don’t you think we should let Jesus tell us what the gospel is?’ His reply confounded me. Of course I had to agree with him. But I could see no connection between the message of the kingdom of God and the gospel as I understood it from Paul. How did I deal with the tension? I didn’t. Somehow, I just put it aside. I sat on it. I ignored it. It was several years later, when I began the quest that led to the writing of this book, that ‘the hot-and-sour soup conversation’ came back to me. Few topics are hotter and more sour than this among theologians today. Some would say that we have exchanged ‘Christianity’ for ‘Paulianity.’ Christianity was about the kingdom of God coming to earth for everyone, they would say. Paulianity is about a select few escaping earth and going to heaven after they die. They would see Paul as the enemy who ruined the good thing begun by Jesus. However, I don’t think Paul is the enemy; I think our misinterpretations of Paul are the enemy. I think Paul is actually a friend of the gospel of the kingdom, perhaps its best friend since Jesus.” Secret Message, 91.

[5] There is actually much in Secret Message that I appreciate, but it is so mixed up with what I consider to be outright error, I would never recommend the book to anyone. It is funny. I have spent nearly 6 years of my preaching ministry in the Gospels, yet when I read it I find he sees a very different Jesus than I do. When I think really hard about this, I come to one of two conclusions: a) One of us is right, or b) Both of us are wrong. How can I know for sure which of those two options is correct? I am afraid my only recourse would be to think epistemologically!

[6] This event carries the following tag line on the author: “Andrew Jones, a native New Zealander, is a scout for emerging forms in the global church. He and his family are based in Prague, the Czech Republic.” http://www.faithworks.com/archives/next_new_worship.htm Emphasis mine.

Where Emergent Goes Bad (9) - "Me" the Final Authority

Finally, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that for McLaren and many other EC folks, the final source of authority for their opinions are... themselves. McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy is proof in the pudding. It is rather staggering to read this book and listen to one man go on for nearly 300 pages about what he has judged to be good in all forms of world religions. Chapter after chapter we are told what is good in groups like liberals, charismatics, Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc. And all of these conclusions are based strictly on McLaren’s experience of the group.

So, he can embrace little “c” catholicism because of a nice moment he had in a garden beside a statue of Mary.[1] He can appreciate his re-working of Calvinism by remembering that Calvin wrote his first edition of the Institutes as a very young and bold man.[2] He can say he is Biblical, without embracing inerrancy, since the actual word “inerrant” is not found in the Bible.[3] Every chapter is full of the same.

The first person personal pronoun is the most-used word in the book: I think, I saw, I came to realize, I found, I know – these types of things. On top of that, we are faced with conclusion after conclusion of why this group did this, what we are to learn from these folks, etc without any factual back up other than McLaren’s own opinion and/or experience. Sometimes we are given footnotes of other authors who seem to agree with McLaren, but a rough survey by my daughter and I brought forward results that suggest 84% of McLaren’s quoted sources were published after 1996. That means the majority of cited works are less than ten years old.[4]

When you combine these characteristics you end up with a very bold book indeed![5] But this is reflective of the post-modernism that many EC people love. Truth is not static nor to be found only in the Bible alone. It really all comes down to what I think is true – how it impacts me.

This strikes at the heart of the problem with EC; the source of Truth.

---

[1] Orthodoxy, 221.

[2] Orthodoxy, 188.

[3] Orthodoxy, 165.

[4] We counted 70 sources cited in the footnotes of A Generous Orthodoxy, 11 published between 1954-1990, and 59 from 1996-2004. There is some duplication in our figures as we did not account for every multiple citation. Even so, our figures show where the majority of quotations are from.

[5] Carson comments on A Generous Orthodoxy this way: “Every chapter of this book succumbs to the same elementary analysis. Every chapter has some useful insights, and every chapter overstates arguments, distorts history, attaches excessively negative terms to all the things with which McLaren disagrees (even when they have been part of the heritage of confessional Christianity for two thousand years), and almost never engages the Scriptures except occasionally in prooftexting ways. Even the closing chapter, “Why I Am Unfinished,” manages in brief compass to express attractive humility, misrepresent what “orthodoxy” has meant in the past, give a new definition of “orthodoxy,” cite a couple of biblical passages that have nothing to do with what he is talking about, and very seriously understate what believers ought to know, should know, and can know, if we are to judge such matters not by postmodern epistemological preferences but by what Scripture actually says. It is important to face the limitations of our knowledge; it is also important to celebrate the fact that one of the central purposes of the coming of the Son of God to this earth, of his death and resurrection, of the gospel itself, was to reveal and make known the things that had been much more hidden in earlier revelation (Romans 16:25-27).

I wish these problems were located only in this book, so that one could say that this book is not typical of McLaren’s work as a whole.” Conversant, 13.

Where Emergent Goes Bad (8) - Too Many Words

The Bible does have some interesting things to say about our words. First off, too much talk leads only to trouble.

Proverbs 10:8 A babbling fool will come to ruin.

That being the case, a wise person will learn to speak less than he will listen. There is wisdom in learning to keep your mouth closed.

Proverbs 21:23 Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue / keeps himself out of trouble.

Proverbs 13:3 Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.

Proverbs 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking. but whoever restrains his lips is

prudent.

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed

intelligent.

The sheer volume of EC materials in books, web sites, blogs, podcasts, and emails, along with the overemphasis on dialogue at the expense of proclamation has created a library-sized collection of words. Some of these words aren’t even real words (“missional,” “emergent,” and “liminal” all come to mind), just made up phrases and verbal adjectives that make the outsider wonder if EC isn’t just really a collection of angry artists and English majors.

I am all for expressing ideas in fresh and riveting ways, but this might be better done by EC with fewer and more precise words. I know this may sound petty, but I believe this to be one of the foundational problems with the movement as a whole. In all this talk about meditation and silence and listening and dialogue and friendship, you think somebody would get the idea that actually not speaking or writing for a few minutes might be a good thing.

This becomes all the more frustrating when one is trying to study the movement and figure out what it is really saying. I am sure some will read this paper and say, “That is not what we are saying. You are not representing us fairly. What about this or that author/blogger/talker?” That makes for a nice out, but how can any one person possibly read all there is to read about EC?[1]

---

[1] Then again, maybe that is just my “out!”

Where Emergent Goes Bad (7) - Turtling

Warning: for non-Canadians this illustration may not make sense. In the code of honour in hockey, it is the duty of Player B to stand up and fight when challenged by Player A. Player B may not be a fighter, and may even be injured in a way that makes fighting nearly impossible, but the one thing Player B must never do is turtle.[1] Turtling is when Player B crumples into a little ball on the ice and lets Player A punch him in the back... and get all the penalties.

Turtling happens in theological debate, too. An author writes a book and the critiques and criticisms begin to appear. Rather than answer those criticisms, learn from them, defend his views or bring forward more proof, the author issues statements like this: “You haven’t taken the time to understand me.” Or, “You must not have read my book.” Or, “How could I even dialogue with you when you don’t understand anything to begin with.” Not exactly the spirit of “the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”[2] Consider these examples:

I often hear people saying we deny the existence of truth (which is, frankly, ridiculous) or that we reject the Bible (again, ridiculous). Some say that we show no respect for Church tradition and others that we pay too much respect to tradition. Some reduce everything we're talking about to a rather esoteric and un-nuanced debate about epistemology. Some are concerned about me because they know that I am unhappy about the Religious Right's narrowing of the gospel's social impact to two or three issues, and I think the rhetorical strategy of the Religious Right has made evangelism harder here in America and around the world. If they think the Religious Right is the leading edge of God's work on the planet, they see me as someone who isn't with the program.[3]

Or this example in a reply he makes to Chuck Colson:

Many of the people who think they understand postmodernism and write or speak about it lack the time, energy, or historical and philosophical understanding to begin to understand what they don’t understand about it, so it’s fruitless to even try to dialogue with them. It’s better just to let things slide.[4]

How convenient! This is not answering the arguments. It is true McLaren is writing to Colson based on Colson’s original document, but he makes no reply (that I can find) to Colson’s follow-up letter to this open letter. To paint your opponent as “just too ignorant to discuss matters with” is a cop out. If EC is serious about “having a conversation” then this continual “You don’t understand me!” caveat needs to be dropped. Many have tried to engage the issues presented by EC only to find no response, vague mumblings about what this or that person said, or an ad hominem attack.[5]

---

[1] Turtling is especially offensive to the code when Player B has been provoking Player A through unfair stick work, trash talk, or cheap shots. If Player B makes a habit of, for instance, skating by Player A and whacking the back of his knee with his stick, then he ought to be ready to drop the gloves!

[2] 2 Timothy 2:24-26. The only time we seem to be free to run from a dispute is when they are “foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” (verse 23). But, if McLaren and others feel critiques are foolish and ignorant controversies, then they ought to at least say as much.

[3] Criswell Theological Review CT n.s. 3/2 (Spring 2006) 8. Accessed online at http://criswell.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/3,2%20InterviewwithBrianMcLaren%28Streett%29.PDF on March 31, 2006. See also his Open Letter to Chuck Colson in the first few lines.

[4] From his “Open Letter to Chuck Colson” http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000018.html accessed March 31, 2006.

[5] I am sure negative things have been hurled both directions, but it really is shocking to read comment strings on blogs like EmergentNo. Name-calling, straw-men and false testimony seem to abound. Is this indicative of the youthfulness of most participants in the movement?