« Getting the Facts Straight: Hershael York | Main | A Curious Omission »
Evangelism Debate and Emergent Realities
Posted by Scott Gordon | April 21, 2008
Today we have the privilege of sharing with you an essay written by Shannon Johnson concerning the differing views of evangelism between classical theology and the emergent conversation. She is a student at the University of Tennessee and daughter of Chris Johnson - Chris is pastor of Grace Church at Hermitage and has been a guest contributor and frequent commenter.
In her essay, Miss Johnson contrasts the views of evangelism held by Classical Theology and the Emergent Conversation by writing,
On the surface, the churches seem to agree on what they believe to be fundamental doctrine. However, when further studied, there are major differences between the two. The funny fact is that you might not see the major divisions by listening to their sermons or by reading what each church believes off of their church sites, but you can find the major divisions by listening to their individual interpretations of various parts of Christianity through interviews. I thought that this was kind of odd. I would have thought that the differences would have been much more near the surface. Through studying, I found that there is a way to decipher the truth, and to my surprise, I found the truth to be very interesting and disturbing all at the same time.
She further delineates her argument by writing
The primary reason for the division of the beliefs between the two churches is due to their interpretation of why Jesus came to earth. Classical Evangels believe that Jesus came to earth to save sinners, to provide atonement, and to fulfill prophecy…However, the Emergent Church believes that the reason for Jesus coming to Earth is not contingent on providing a way for people to understand salvation and the path to Heaven; rather, it is contingent on changing people’s view of life from conversions to conversations in the community.
You may link to Miss Johnson’s complete essay here. Enjoy!
Topics: Emergent, Evangelism, Guest Author |
April 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I have read our Sister Shannon’s paper. I think she is spot on as to the differences in evangelism. As a Classic Evangel (I am now old enough to be termed ‘classic’) I do see the need to build relationships, but that is not the main objective in ministry. If what we do is not about verbally sharing with others the love of Jesus, then we are doing nothing but advocating a social gospel.
Blessings,
Tim
April 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Tim,
Classic is good. Ancient, however, is another story!
I, too, am encouraged to read such conviction from this up-and-coming generation. Good work, Shannon.
Sola Gratia!
April 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
My Dearest Shannon,
I, too, completely agree with how you have identified the real problem with the Emergent philosophy when you said, “There is a difference in the Classical and Emergent view of evangelism because the Emergent’s believe that sharing the word of God is not the main focus of evangelism”. Wow,…that’s very well stated and certainly that Emergent thought is aberrant when compared to the evangel of the bible……
Romans 10:16-17 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” (17) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Thank you for helping us understand even better how experience, emotion and social issues are never a replacement for the word of God.
I hope things are going well in Knoxville,…be safe,…and I am looking forward to having you home for the summer!
Love,
Dad
April 21st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
To All,
If you are having trouble entering the comment stream it is not the fault of Wordpress. Brother Chris cannot get back out of the door he entered the comment stream. His head has now swollen so large that the internet 2.0 mb speed my internet operates on has slowed back to 56k.
Brother Chris,
I know you are proud of her. She has placed some great thoughts out here for us.
Blessings,
Tim
April 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Brother Tim,
I’m not sure the Internet has enough “bandwidth” to absorb my love for her……
Blessings,
Chris
April 21st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I like the paper, although I don’t know that I agree with her conclusion. My major beef is that she’s lumping the Emergent together as one movement. What if I wrote a paper about SB churches? Not possible, because their beliefs and practices vary differently. Definitely thought provoking though.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Good work. I’d love to converse with you some time about some of my observations. Thanks Shannon come see us in Texas. She is as awesome in person as she is on paper
April 21st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Camel Rider,
Would you elaborate on some of the differences you see in Emergent evangelism that may have been overlooked?
Blessings,
Tim
April 21st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sister Shannon,
Nice paper. Interesting and informative read.
Brother Chris,
Congratulations on the nice job you have done! You must be proud of her (in an humble way of course).
In regards to the emergent’s view of Christ (which is as diverse and broad as many preacher’s pathway to the kingdom of heaven), I came across this quote from C.S.Lewis that may be applicable:
“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Grace and Peace to y’all….
ABClay
April 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I found this line a little odd:
“The reason the Kingdom appeals to McLaren in such a way is because he believes that a kingdom encompasses all of life, thus Jesus’ message does not just deal with moral issues and religious issues; it deals with politics, economics, ecology, racial relations..war..etc etc”
As Tim’s post the other day proved, race and racism are most definitely MORAL issues. Actually, I’m not sure what issues the author would even consider “moral issues” after reading the quote above. The ERLC takes up a plethora of moral issues. Southern Baptists might consider some (pro-life) to be more important than others (Climate Change) but they are still moral issues nonetheless.
My main criticism is that the author treats the “Emergent Church” as one monolithic group. That’s just inaccurate. We don’t treat Baptists as one monolithic group. Diversity anyone?
Plus, the author never offered a detailed definition of what is meant by the term “Emergent Church.” A content footnote with a bit of background info (distinguish between the different branches of the Emerging Church, etc.) would have been helpful. McLaren might believe one thing but Pagitt and Jones might believe another. If the Emergent Church is defined as the beliefs of Pagitt, Jones & McLaren - the author’s claims *might* be true. But surely the “Emergent Church” is much more than just three men. Finally, I reject the notion that “Emergent” Christians do not share the gospel with others. It’s not a monolithic movement….
April 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Big Daddy,
You are correct. The Emergent/ emerging Church is a broad and very diverse movement. There are almost as many definitions of Emergent/emerging as there are books on the subject. Some say that it is a protest against modernity. Of course, that is not sufficient. Some say it is the reduction of the faith to the essentials and relevance. That to lacks certain particulars of the movement.
It seems the movement is always in motion by refinement of certain things and the expulsion of others. Then when others looks at that they ask; What on earth does that mean?
One thing is common among those writing about the Emergent/emerging; It is all but impossible to define.
I think you know that. So, why are you requiring Ms. Johnson to do what no one else can?
There are many within the movement who are very evangelistic. There are those who are not. There are those who are orthodox. There are those who, like McLaren, are not.
So, maybe you are right. They are somewhat like Baptists. That is probably because many of them are.
cb
April 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Camelrider,
Shannon’s paper got me poking around to get a better picture of the Emergent philosophy and she seems to be right on target with the direction of this fad.
As Christianity Today (not the most conservative of news producers) has reported….For McLaren, the gospel is not primarily informational but relational/missional. He has also said, “”I think most Christians grossly misunderstand the philosophical baggage associated with terms like absolute and objective (linked to foundationalism and the myth of neutrality),” McLaren said. “Similarly, arguments that pit absolutism versus relativism, and objectivism versus subjectivism, prove meaningless or absurd to postmodern people: They’re wonderful modern arguments that backfire with people from the emerging culture.”
It appears that McLaren is interested in changing the content of the message, in hopes of communicating its essence in some other way besides “propositional truths”. Shannon’s conclusions seem to stem to one central problem with the Emergent movement,… that the Emergent’s tend to put more emphasis on making language relevant…. which may require the essential gospel message and language to change from propositional to relational. Objective truth, according to McLeran,… is evidently seen by the post-modern as irrelevant while engaged in a culturally acceptable vibe. This concept is actually not much different than the basketball and bowling alley ploys of churches some 20-30 years back. It is kind of the same ole wishful thinking of building a better mouse-trap and they will come. Instead of bowling alleys, McLaren is using language and philosophical exercises to entice the listeners.
I think B. Diddy brings up a valid point, in that whoever may consider themselves “Emergent” may not fit into, for instance, McLaren’s world, but some other. I do find it interesting to consider what an Emergent may me emerging from. What was wrong with the propositional truth of the gospel as given in scripture?… Why some 2000 years later some may think it needs a facelift? Or is the gospel, exposed by propositional truths, not clear enough?
Our churches could probably use some of the kind intentions of these movements, but we should never sacrifice the propositional language of the Holy Scripture for the false hopes of relational communities.
Blessings,
Chris
April 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think the problem is as Chris has stated. There is no “prepositional truths” in their message. I get sick to my stomach listening to these guys. As a matter of fact, I would rather listen to some “fundamentalist” baptist rail against bible translations or skirts than listen to those who deny Truth.
This link is pretty telling. Cool is in, truth is out. Listen to the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVdLZlBYseg
Grace and peace to y’all…
ABClay
April 21st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Brother AB,
You have linked to an excellent video. I would encourage all to listen in its entirety. When the video ends, it does not mean that it is over. Especially listen to how Pagitt interacts with the person that is probably an unbeliever.
It proves Sister Shannon’s thesis concerning Emergent types. They are more interested in forming relationships than they are in sharing Christ.
Blessings,
Tim
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Good conversation.
Let me clarify, I’m not defending the “Emergent” I’m just saying her paper should be about the evangelistic beliefs of McLaren…not the entire emerging church…because the group is diverse with some dead on and some way off. Which by the way is very similar to the SBC.
The other thing is emerging and missional are the not the same thing. I do not consider myself emerging, I do consider myself missional. Rich Meigs defines missional as “Missional is a helpful term used to describe what happens when you and I replace the “come to us” invitations with a “go to them” life. A life where “the way of Jesus” informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower.”
There is a significant focus on relationships but not over evangelism. The focus however is to leave the Christian bubble, spend time off of the church campus and actually live life with people, both believers and non-believers. There’s no hidden agenda, no bait and switch, no sales pitch….just living life together, sharing struggles and because the foundation of this life is a relationship with Christ this is shared as we go along. The amazing thing is that it’s very much like most of the world lives their lives.
I live in a Muslim country and this is how life is lived here. In the US we seperate faith from everything else. Here faith enters into every conversation through stories and testimonies. The life becomes much more holistic with faith interacting with every other aspect of life. This is being missional. Please don’t lump all of this together into one big movement.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Tim,
The only thing that was \”proved\” in those four pages was that Brian McLaren said what he said when the author quoted him and John Piper said what he said when the author quoted him. I\’m not sure that any short essay could provide enough information and offer enough analysis to make such definitive conclusions.
You\’re painting with a very BROAD BRUSH.
You can\’t cherrypick quotes from a handful of sources and then apply those words to a growing movement of Christians here in America and in Europe.
I\’ve read McLaren. I have not read Pagitt nor do I care to. But as for the \”relationship-building\” approach to evangelism - perhaps the post-modern types are just as interested in \”sharing the gospel\” as you and your Southern Baptist brethren. However, their methods are different. Not everyone believes that the old style ways of doing evangelism works anymore. Some instead prefer to focus on building community and establishing relationships. This focus obviously leads to sharing the gospel and along the way, as the relationship is being fostered, the person will hopefully see Christ in you.
I don\’t think any man speaks for the \”Emergent Church\” like the Pope speaks for the RCC. But the post-modern folks I know have not dumped the idea of sharing the gospel. But I\’ll let you know whether the Emergent folks still preach and share the Gospel. I am going to one of the more influential postmodern churches on Sunday, University Baptist Church (Waco), to hear David Crowder lead worship.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 am
Not sure what’s up with the backward slashes.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
Brother Camel Rider,
Excellent points! …. You’re absolutely right to say that Christianity is a “go to them” religion, not so much a “come see what I am doing” religion. Isn’t that the proposition that Christ gave to the disciples and the world?
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (19) “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Sometimes we look over Christ’s proposition to quickly. He is objective in that “All authority has been given to me”….the “Go”…. “make disciples” … “baptizing them” … “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”…. “I am with you” … “to the end”.
The words of Christ’s do not seem to have a relationship building ring to them outside of who He is,… but His words are propositional with objectives….not because of our relationships, but because of the promise of the “Holy Spirit” at work calling a people out of the world ( and according to God, that will never change). The people of the world that continuously reject Christ are not impressed one bit with our relationships or our attempts to be a little more like them, even though they may “appear” to be more comfortable with different methods. Again, bowling alleys worked well for a while, until bowling became boring.
I think Shannon’s paper was meant to be general (at least that the way it appears to me) because it is not really all that difficult to spot counterfeit attempts to improve the gospels palatability. I like her summary line the best,…. “no matter how good peoples intentions are in trying to include others in a kind atmosphere, the joy is not found until Christ is at the forefront of everything”. I like the way she uses the term “everything”. Isn’t that the reason as Camel Rider has graciously stated… to go and present the proposition that Christ is preeminent to “everything”, even relationships?
Colossians 3:1-3 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. (2) Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. (3) For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Big Daddy,
No Bushido moves intended. No blade has been drawn. No “slash” engaged, high, low, diagonal up, diagonal down and certainly not “backward.”
My point is that Ms. Johnson was focused upon evangelism, specifically that of the Emergent/emerging church movement. She was not focused on the task of defining the movement. Had that been her goal she would have had to have written a book and then not been successful in doing so. No one can completely define the Emergent/emerging church.
I agreed with you as to the diversity of the movement.
Yet, when you say; “If the Emergent Church is defined as the beliefs of Pagitt, Jones & McLaren the author’s claims *might* be true” can be and most definitely has been challenged by most all who write about the movement.
If one uses the the beliefs of Pagitt, Jones & McLaren then the author’s claims *are* true.
BTW, glad you are going to hear David Crowder but remember “post-modern” does not necessarily equate “Emergent.”
Now, Big Daddy, that was a simple low-cross cut (slash) definitely not a “backward slash.”
cb
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
Brother BDiddy,
You accuse me of painting with a BROAD BRUSH and then you say, Not everyone believes that the old style ways of doing evangelism works anymore. Some instead prefer to focus on building community and establishing relationships. This focus obviously leads to sharing the gospel and along the way, as the relationship is being fostered, the person will hopefully see Christ in you. Come on now, who is painting with a BROAD BRUSH?
Allow me to just give one recent example. I, as a ‘Southern Baptist brethren’, led our traditional church to be involved in a community building project here in NC. Our project was to have a block party here at the church. We turned our church grounds into a huge street fair type of deal. We had free hot dogs, pony rides, sack races, face painting, huge blow-up slides and bouncing enclosed things (I do not know what they are called), a tent where someone was playing music with various styles all during the day, Ice Cream being given away, and bingo being played. That is right Bingo! (Of course there was no money involved.) All of this was set up by the various Sunday School classes in our church. One Sunday School class set-up a small tent and placed a large sign out front saying; “We Want Your Opinion”. You would be amazed at the people that stopped by that tent to give their ‘opinion’. Of course we were using the ‘Opinion Poll’ contained in FAITH, as that is our outreach strategy here at Yadkin. We probably had 400-500 people come through on Saturday. We had 2 people pray to receive Christ there in the counseling area under that tent.
We built relationships with many in our community. However, we saw two precious souls come into the kingdom. Let me ask a question. Would those two souls that prayed to receive Jesus ever had the opportunity to do so if we would have been focused on building relationships? I say no! Why? Of the 400-500 that came through here, we only saw two families with us on Sunday. So much for building relationships. We will minister to those two families and build relationships with them, but what about those other 100-200 families that came through here? What kind of relationship have we built with them?
I understand that building relationship is a key to witnessing. But if we focus on building relationship we miss the opportunity to witness. Look at the video that Brother AB has linked us. You will see that Pagitt missed an excellent opportunity to share Christ with that girl. He was too busy putting down John McArthur along with the unbeliever, to share Christ with her.
Blessings,
Tim
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
From Desiring God Ministires (John Piper’s ministry), this is Mark Driscoll on Emerging and Emergent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI
And here is a quote from Kaleo Church’s Mission Statement that demonstrates great balance between preaching the Kingdom and living the Kingdom:
“We resolve to be more involved in deeds of mercy and social justice than traditional liberal churches and at the same time more involved in evangelism and church planting than traditional conservative churches.” from: http://www.kaleochurch.com/
Great balance.
May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
Now, Big Daddy, Let examine three blogger techniques.
1. Your comment #16 to Tim was actually a Broad Brush when you seemed to equate post-modern to Emergent.
2. My rag on you in comment #19 correcting you about broad-brushing was simply a low-cross cut rag.
3. In comment #20 Tim used the old “James Taylor Exclusive” on you: “I’M A STEAMROLLER BABY, AND I’M BOUND TO ROLL OVER YOU.” That is his best move.
Just raggin’ on you Big Daddy. You too, Tim. See you later.
cb
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Tim,
You yourself admit that out of all the work you did only two families attended church. Here are a few thoughts….
The GC is to to make disciples, not merely evangelize. Discipleship isn’t achieved solely through a class or a study it’s achieved in small groups of one on one relationships. So this would imply that a relationship is in place. We’re so focused on sharing that we miss the heart of the GC, to disciple people.
What would have happened if you would have scrapped the on campus block party and instead you gave the money to some of your church families to have block parties on their ….blocks. You may not have had 300-400 families come through but you would have had families interacting with your church families in an atmosphere they can maintain. Then they could continue to meet with those that expressed interest or with those they became friends with. These relationships would be much easier to maintain and much more personal. It sounds like your people are trained and have the heart to share so it could prove to be quite effective. And it would help your people to have authentic pre-Christ relationships that could easily transition into discipleship relationships post-conversion. What do you think?
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
abc,
thanks for sharing that video clip. amazing! john mcarthur shared the truth, and he was ridiculed by an unbeliever(of course) and a christian….who is a pastor!!!! sad. that’s the days we live in. people want to have thier ears tickled, so they flock to the joel osteens and the oprah’s and the pagitt’s of this world instead of hearing God’s truth.
you know, in the video pagitt made a statement to the effect of….”well, now we see why the young people arent going to church.” as if preaching the truth of God’s Word and standing on sound doctrine is bad because the young people wont come to church if you preach the truth of God’s Word. for one thing, i’m sick of hearing that arguement brought up every time someone doesnt like something that we stand on as christians and southern baptist, or else they use that arguement to excuse thier method of church growth, or whatever. if young people dont want to adhere to sound doctrine…if they reject the gospel…if the gospel and God’s Word is offensive to them….then, let them go. what do we expect out of a lost world that loves sin!!!???!!!
and, i believe that this shows us just where this emergent/emerging types of people are coming from. they are about numbers. they are about getting young people to come to thier meetings. they may even be about getting young people to help the poor, or help marriages get stronger, or about putting clean wells in villages in foreign countries, etc. but, they dont seem to care about people believing God’s truth. they seem to be willing to throw the teachings of the scripture to the wind in order to “relate” to the lost world. this is not only sad, but very, very, very dangerous. people’s souls hang in the balance. but, after all, we all sang kum ba ya around the campfire while we sipped on our bud lites, and we all felt real cozy and warm inside after a hard day of handing out latte’s to the crowd in manhatten to ease the pain of thier day. puuuuleeeeease. God help us.
david
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
Big Daddy,
Then there is Vol’s favorite technique called: VOLOLOGY.
It is easily defined. NUKE ‘EM ALL.
cb
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
David,
You are welcome, I hope everyone who has not seen it will give it some air time.
You wrote: “if young people dont want to adhere to sound doctrine…if they reject the gospel…if the gospel and God’s Word is offensive to them….then, let them go. what do we expect out of a lost world that loves sin!!!???!!!”
Humm….Jesus said, “You don’t believe because you are not my sheep”. Luke tells us in Acts that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed”.
You are sounding a lot like a reformed baptist there brother. You need to be careful
All we can do is share the gospel, and it will be offensive to some people. To those who are perishing, the cross is foolishness. And they will reject it and be justly condemned for their rejection of truth.
Just had to say that…
Grace and peace to y’all….
ABClay
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
David,
Or perhaps I should just welcome you to “the dark side”?
Are you a closet calvinist?
ABClay
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
abc,
i’m calvinistic in my theology, yet i am not sold out on any one system. but, to believe the bible in the right way, one would have to be calvinistic…would they not?
david
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Vol,
I know I cannot answer for ABC, but I would choose to answer your last question…
“OBVIOUSLY!”
Sola Gratia!
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
ABClay,
Thanks for the link to the clip … man, if that’s what the Emergent movement is all about - count me out. I was at the T4G conference last week. Out of the more than 5000 participants, many - many of them were late teens and twenty year olds. God’s people want the Truth and it doesn’t matter if their 80 or 8.
Jesus said; “My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me,” (John 10:27). For Pagitt to apologize for MacArthur is just crazy.
Grace,
Wes
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Brother David,
Sorry then for the mis-characterization.
So you are not calling for those of us who are Calvinistic to come out of this “tangent” and get back to the bible?
Praise be to God. Hallelujah Amen!!!
I got to pay more attention.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Wes,
Yeah, that thing about Pagitt apologizing for J. Mac was pretty revolting.
Maybe he thought he was gonna get a date? What was he thinking? There was a sense of appeasement there that I found uncomfortable. I don’t care if you agree with J. Mac or not in your theology, he is bashing the good doctor to a non-believer which is not acceptable behavior.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
BTW, neither WesInTex or I are were in the 20 or 30 year old groups…..
But, we had a great time anyway and it was encouraging to see young men hungry for the Christ and His word!
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
ABClay,
You write: “Maybe he thought he was gonna get a date?”
LOL - now THAT’s relationship building!!!
Grace,
Wes
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Chris,
We must have been posting at the same time. We did have a great time - but that was a low blow - you didn’t have to mention that we weren’t in that age range 8->
BTW, I appreciated your daughter’s paper. She sure must have taken after her mother! 8->
Grace,
Wes
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Wes,
You speak the truth my Brother… (older brother)
:0
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
From the middle east,
thanks for the link. He seemed pretty decent and level headed in that interview. Didn’t use a “curse” word the whole time, in case some were hesitant to view it.
Is that truly where the word “emerging” came from? I guess he would know, but man have they strayed far from the question that posed the name. “How would a missionary reach postmodern America? The answers are “emerging”.”
I know, let’s be just like them. Let’s drink coffee with them, do yoga with them, play their music in church (not type of music, I really said “their music”), and tell them what a wonderful plan God has for their lives.
I wonder if this would qualify? Are any of you qualified to offer an opinion on whether or not this would be classified as an “emerging” church?
http://xlwired.com/new/what_to_expect.html
anyways…
Grace and Peace to Y’all….
ABClay
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
abc,
dont rejoice too much, my brother. i’m not a dortian calvinist. i dont have any “tulips” in my bouquet. i do believe that there are some extreme…aggresive…five pointers out there who are on a tangent. yes. they’ve gone to seed on five point, dortian calvinism. but, not all five pointers have gone to seed. but, some have. i do believe that many at the founder’s have gone to seed over all of this. i dont hate them, btw. i dont look upon them as a cult, either. i just think that they’ve gone off the deep end on dortian calvinism, and have become dortian crusaders. but, i still love them in the Lord….even though they seem to get very angry with me.
david
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Wow. Where to begin?
I am no fan of Emergent. I have never been fond of Doug Pagitt and I think that he aims to please men instead of being true to the gospel. Also, the yoga video, while interesting, was far from conclusive. I hate yoga. Going to India regularly, it is a Hindu practice that every Christian should run from. But, MacArthur, both in his quote in Miss Johnson’s paper and in the video is incomplete on several points. He says that Jesus only came to save sinners and did not have a social agenda? Huh? Is he reading the same Bible I am reading? How can you say that the Sermon on the Mount does not have social implications? That is ludicrous! Are critics of Emergent seriously throwing out language regarding the Kingdom of God encompassing all of life because MacLaren uses it? Has the gospel, according to conservatives, been reduced to ONLY atonement for personal sin? Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom which affected ALL of life. Of course, forgiveness of sin is at the core of that message, but the implications of a right relationship with God are all encompassing. I think that this is what MacLaren and Pagitt are failing miserably at saying.
One other thing: As I previously stated, I think that yoga is horrible. No Christian should engage in the classic practice. But, if you have people who are engaging in stretching exercises to get in better shape and relax, you have to look at that a different way. MacArthur himself admits that is not a problem. The problem can occur with the spiritual meaning of it. Again, I agree that yoga is a problem. But, MacArthur tells us that we should embrace the Word of God and meditate on it by faith, and the result will be joy and peace. I agree. But, he leaves out how that joy and peace is carried out. Many good Baptists take morning walks to get their blood flowing, pray, and begin their day. Just because Buddhists, for example, also walk and meditate does not make walking for exercise and prayer wrong. There are many physical things that we do that provide a calming effect on our lives and enable us to release stress. During these physical activities, if we pray, we are able to meet with God. Engaging in these physical activities to reduce stress is not a denial of the sufficiency of the Word of God. Certain points were being stretched (no pun intended) to absurdity in that video.
Again, I did not like what Pagitt said and I almost always disagree with him. He and MacLaren are not helpful. Yet, at the same time, MacArthur, while expressing biblical truth, runs so far in the other direction that he throws out the social implications of the ministry of Jesus and the in-breaking Kingdom of God! That is wrong as well.
I am not Emergent and I never would accept the vast majority of what they are saying. But, some aspects of conservative theology as represented by MacArthur are throwing the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the implications of the gospel on individuals and society. Do we constantly have to pit extremes against one another? Is there not a middle road? Does not the proclamation of the gospel and the acting out of the gospel go together? Are we not to pray that God’s Kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven? Are we saying that the ONLY work of the church is evangelism and that the entire social order is doomed to burn and we should just sit back and watch it decay? Is not the gospel for all of life? It seems that there are problems on both sides, if we just take the quotes from Miss Johnson’s paper and the video into account.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Brother Alan,
Amen on all counts!! I will now repeat the quote from above:
We resolve to be more involved in deeds of mercy and social justice than traditional liberal churches and at the same time more involved in evangelism and church planting than traditional conservative churches.
His Kingdom Come,
From the Middle East
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Brother Alan,
Just for the record, I am not Shannon’s official spokesdad,…. I am fairly certain she can defend her statements just fine,…and if I know her at all, she would probably not disagree with you on the majority of your post. If I have read her correctly though, she has pointed out what some are defining as the “evangel”. Some are saying that the evangel is “all of life experiences” (emergent?), while others are disagreeing with that assessment.
So, it may be safe to say that the Christian testimony starts at the center of evangelism and falls or leans along one of two directions. One way is to keep Christ front and center of the evangel, or another way is to keep Christ close enough so that when relationships get good enough, Christ can stroll into the room and save the day. The extremes get mentioned when one falls so far one direction or the other from the evangel that heresy becomes obvious. But that still does not preclude the evangel being defined.
I still believe that the evangel, which is the foundation of evangelism, is nothing more the euangelion, and that good news is articulated by scripture alone, not culture or relational endeavors. Isn’t the good news only defined in Christ alone as rescuing and redeeming us from the wrath of God? Is there any other news that makes up the evangel?
We certainly do reap numerous benefits of our standing in Christ and how the Holy Spirit sanctifies us to live peacefully in the world to love our neighbors like never before. But, am I wrong to say that the evangel is not complete in Christ alone? Maybe that is what bugs someone enamored by what they feel is emergent….
I am still trying to find out what the “Emergent” is emerging from. If they say they are emerging from a stagnant church life, or they are emerging from dead Christian orthodoxy, or they are emerging from charismatic emotionalism….then I think I might agree with them, but then I would probably call that repentance, not emergence.
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
CB,
You can’t write a paper without defining your terms.
I’ve written enough to know that.
If the author had defined her terms and defined the Emergent Church as comprised solely of McLaren, Pagitt and Jones then that would have worked. But the author did not do that.
In the case of David Crowder and UBC, “postmodern” and “Emergent” are synonymous. They themselves at UBC use the terms interchangeably. I understand the difference: one can be postmodern without being Emergent. But in certain contexts (such as this one), some folks choose to use the terms interchangeably. For example, see the blog of Rick Davis. A classmate of mine when talking about all things Emergent, chooses the phrase “New Monasticism.” As to Crowder, the less you know about his theology - the more you might like him
Tim,
It is true that “not everyone” believes that the old style ways of doing evangelism still works. Some do prefer to focus on building community and establishing relationships, something that doesn’t happen at a Passion Conference or a tent revival. That is preference of SOME. That’s not painting with a broad brush. I’m merely making assertions that I doubt anyone will refute.
The author used selected quotes from three men to represent a growing movement. You took those selected quotes, painted beautifully with a broad brush, and stated that her thesis was “proved” “concerning Emergent types.” I hope you will concede that the beliefs of Pagitt, Jones and McLaren do not represent all “Emergent types.” I don’t think anyone in four pages could provide enough research to make such a claim. That’s like another author writing that several Southern Baptist leaders don’t believe that women should be permitted to teach men in a seminary setting due to their theological convictions. And then you jump in and claim that the aforementioned author’s thesis was proved concerning “Southern Baptist types.” Broad Brush. Broad Brush. And inaccurate.
Actually, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a fan of McLaren and author Emergent authors because I believe that what they are selling is a threat to Baptist Identity. It’s also a threat to Methodist identity and Lutheran identity. From what I’ve read, it seems as if Emergent authors would like Christians to leave their denominational identity and heritage at the front door. That’s not my cup of tea. I bet we can find some agreement here?
As to evangelism techniques, I’m not dogmatic on this issue. What works for you is good for you. Over the years, I’m rather sure that I’ve played a role in leading some folks to Christ. But, I’ve personally done so through relationship building. I can’t do door-to-door. I’ve done it. It doesn’t work for me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Brother B’Diddy,
Would you consider Driscoll an “Emergent Type”? Would you consider Patrick, in St.Louis an “Emergent Type”? They would say they are not Emergent Type, but they would consider themselves Emerging. There is a difference in Emergent and Emerging. Patrick does a great job giving the history on his blog. It is a great listening session. Thus, McLauren, Pagitt, and others that are within this group are the “Emergent Types” that our younger Sister Shannon was defining, it seemed, in the paper.
As to your assessment that we would agree on the Baptist Identity threat in Emergent Theology, you would be correct. Whatever you do, don’t return to Baylor and tell them that you, CB Scott, and I agree on something. They will yank your degree. :).
Blessings,
Tim
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Brother B. Diddy,
Good thoughts….well said.
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Chris,
I always appreciate your comments. You asked, “Isn’t the good news only defined in Christ alone as rescuing and redeeming us from the wrath of God? Is there any other news that makes up the evangel?” I think that that is the core of the gospel, but that the gospel goes beyond that. This is what I think that Emergent is trying to get at, but they are failing miserably, in my opinion.
Ephesians 3:6-7 provides just one example: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of THIS GOSPEL (emphasis mine, obviously) by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power.”
In this passage, we see both the vertical and horizontal aspects of the gospel. Not only did Jesus reconcile us to God, but He also reconciled us to one another in Him, even across racial divides. This happens in Christ. Jesus is the focus of the gospel, not forgiveness of sins. Of course, forgiveness is key to the gospel, because without it, we could not know God. But, in Christ, we not only come to God, but we also come together in one body. Forgiveness is essential to reconciliation, but the process of reconiliation goes beyond forgiveness, and I think that this is gospel as well. This is why it is called the gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 24:14), not just the gospel of forgiveness of sins.
I completely, wholeheartedly believe that the atonement is at the center of the gospel and that this message must be preached. My whole point is that the gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached is larger than the gospel that we seem to be advocating. Maybe that is part of our problem in America. We proclaim forgiveness of sins and we leave out other aspects. We become very individualistic. In doing so, what are we calling people to repent from? Where is conviction? Where is life change? I also struggle with dividing all of this up into justification and sanctification, as though any other element of the message of Jesus is optional after people confess their sins and are born again. That just does not square with Christ’s message. In pursuing this thinking, it seems that a lot of people want to be justified but not sanctified. That doesn’t really make sense. The problem is solved when you call people to Jesus and not just a state of forgiveness. It seems that much of our preaching is Christ-less and Cross-less and it focuses more our calling people to a place of forgiveness and personal peace. Shouldn’t we be calling people to Christ? If we do so, then do we not call people to embrace all that He is? Isn’t He more than just forgiveness?
Again, I want to keep justification by faith central. But, I also think that the gospel encompasses more than just that. This is why Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom - the reign and rule of God in Him.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Brother Alan,
I too, love this conversation when it turns to a view of Christ and what He brings those adopted into His body. When you said, “I also struggle with dividing all of this up into justification and sanctification, as though any other element of the message of Jesus is optional after people confess their sins and are born again. That just does not square with Christ’s message. In pursuing this thinking, it seems that a lot of people want to be justified but not sanctified.”
Your probably right that many people do not like sanctification, and that would be because those believers that have been imputed with the righteousness of Christ are still sinners. And unless they hear the sweetness of Christ on a daily basis, they will continue to run from His sanctification. However, it is essentially important to understand that one cannot be justified without sanctification being present and continuing from the moment of regeneration. Believers are being sanctified by Christ alone in this life and sustained by Him throughout eternity! We do not sanctify ourselves. But through the freedom that Christ has brought, we now are free to obey and recognize the sanctification that He alone provides by means of the Holy Spirit applying sanctification to us.
Romans 6:22-23 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (14) It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I do agree that the result of sanctification grants our relationships with what only God can provide to His children to carry out the edification of the body of Christ in this world. That is a tremendous blessing.
Thank you for your insight Alan,
Blessings,
Chris
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Chris,
Your comments are always refreshing because you continually focus on Jesus and the beauty of grace and the power of the gospel. You are a breath of fresh air in the blogosphere.
I do not disagree with anything that you say here. I guess that the best way to look at what I am saying is just that I think that the gospel of the Kingdom includes all that you have said and also transformation of the individual that works its way through culture. Luke 4:18-19 is in view here as Jesus began His ministry by saying what He came to do. I guess that I see ALL of Jesus’ work as the good news of the in breaking Kingdom, not just the aspects of regeneration and justification, although that is absolutely necessary to experience the rest of what God has for us in Christ.
Of course, God performs the sanctification as well as we cooperate with Him by faith.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Big Daddy,
Your comment in #42 is classic Big Daddy Weave style. That is the Big Daddy I love to engage. You must have been a little “under the weather” on a couple other post just recently.
Glad to see you back in top form.
cb
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
So,Alan,
Chris is a “breath of fresh air” around here? Does that mean the rest of us stink?
cb
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
CB,
Yup.
Alan