THE EMERGING CHURCH
Introduction
The emerging
church phenomenon has changed a reasonable amount of the church ministry
landscape in America
over the past decade. The concept of the emerging church was formulated with
the purpose of addressing the post-modern philosophy, along with its various
aspects, that have emerged in the United States’ culture. Titling the
movement as “emerging” creates a banner under which several branches identify.
Mark Driscoll, one of the chief spokesmen of the movement describes the
emerging church as consisting of liberal emergent churches, monastic and
communal home churches, trendy evangelicals, and Reformissionists (which is
what his church claims to be).[1]
Misunderstandings
Perhaps the
biggest misunderstandings concerning the emerging church movement are that (a)
it is, in fact, a movement and (b) it is separate from the term “emergent,”
which refers to specific churches.
Just as the
charismatic “movement” has become trans-denominational and varied in degree, so
is the emerging church movement. Acts 29, the emerging church planting
network started by Driscoll says that its goal is to “[network] with men in
different denominations and networks for the kingdom good of the city.”[2] The
description continues,
Acts
29 is not a model or a style. We have classical church plants with a preacher
and a congregation, we have video-delivered sermons, we have missional
community models, replants, and existing churches that want to plant churches
with us. We seek to be a movement of church-planting networks - that is,
decentralized and empowered networks to lead men of all different types of
churches in order to make disciples of all people groups.[3]
Obviously,
this self-description has certain implications. Firstly, the fact that this
network (which is the leader in producing emerging churches) has no set
methodology proves that it has flexibility working in and out of different
cities and denominations across the country. Secondly, their focus is on
diversity and multiplication. At an Acts 29 Boot Camp in St. Louis last month, three of the six
speakers were minorities and the selection was intentional.[4] A mark of
the emerging church (at least in the Acts 29 camp) is that churches should look
like cities-- populated and diverse. Lastly, and most dangerously, this
movement has shaky safeguards against false doctrine. This is evidenced most
blatantly by the associations made by Acts 29 pastors.[5]
It is
important to note that “emerging” is different than “emergent.” The titles are
confusing and, at the end of the day, unimportant. Driscoll started out on the
same page with those in the emergent camp (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren) but broke
away when their theology progressed into liberalism. Thus, the emergent church
represents skeptical and unbiblical theology, as seen in books such as Love
Wins, Velvet Elvis, and others. “Emerging” refers to a style, or
method, of church and “emergent” refers to a theology that is left of center.
Theology and Contextualization
Emergent
The emergent
church branch is essentially symbolized by the Emergent Village,
which is a skeptical movement emulating neo-liberalism, as evidenced by its
values.[6] Rob
Bell’s Mars Hill
Bible Church
in Grand Rapids, Michigan serves as a prime example of an
emergent church. Their “doctrinal statement,” which appears in the form of a
theological narrative on their website, discusses man’s sin but mentions
nothing of hell or any kind of eternal punishment. The only time judgment is
brought up is in their eschatological beliefs which is stated as follows:
We believe the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge
the world, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s
original intent…God will wipe away all our tears. Our relationships with God,
others, ourselves, and creation will be whole. All will flourish as God
intends. This is what we long for. This is what we hope for. And we are giving
our lives to living out that future reality now.[7]
Monastic
The
communal/monastic branch of the emerging church is quite strange in its
beliefs, rendering it few in number. Some of the beliefs (known as the Twelve
Marks) of New Monasticism, led by Shane Claiborne, are “relocation to the
abandoned places of Empire,” “nurturing common life among members of
intentional community,” and “commitment to a disciplined contemplative life.”[8]
As
stated, monastic contextualization is not incredibly popular; however,
Claiborne, the leader in this doctrine, has spoken at many conferences across
the country, including the popular Urbana Conference in 2009.[9]
Interestingly, Chris Heuertz, who is of the same persuasion as
Claiborne, is speaking at the Urbana Conference this year (December 27-31).[10] [11] The
Urbana Conference is a part of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, which, like
emerging churches, is inter-denominational. The Urbana Conference, which has
been gathering every three years for decades now, is currently seeking to
gather thousands of students “to follow Jesus by committing their lives to God’s global mission.”[12]
Trendy
This third branch of the emerging
church is the broadest in nature. Driscoll has described this type of church as
being one that enhances the quality of the music and causes the atmosphere of
the church to be appealing to the post-modern mind.[13] Though it
is inconclusive as to whether or not all “trendy emerging churches” agree with
the forthcoming statement, David Murrow speaks to the necessity of a church’s
quality in his book Why Men Hate Going to Church:
Why is quality so important?
Because church growth depends on people inviting their friends. Men will not
invite their friends to a church service that’s corny, hokey, or half-baked.
John Lewis has dubbed this the ‘cringe factor’-- defining it as ‘what happens
when a Christian finally gets up enough nerve to invite his unbelieving friend
to church, and the Christian quietly cringes through the service because of the
off-key singing, out-of-tune piano, bad acoustics, malfunctioning microphones,
and disjointed sermon.’[14]
Murrow then goes on to talk about
the church’s image, branding, and décor which makes it, as Driscoll says,
“trendy.” This section of Murrow’s book is specifically talking about mega
churches and it is likely that most trendy emerging churches are large, if not
“mega.” Therefore, it can be deduced that the trendy emerging church is one
that is evangelical in theology, but very image-driven in its contextual
ministry.
Reformissionist
Mark Driscoll, whose name has been
necessarily overused, is at the core of the Reformissionist branch of the
emerging church because he is the founder of it. The word is an infusion of
“Reformed” and “missional.” Acts 29 churches are typically this way because
they are Reformed in their theology, but very contextual in their outreach.
The heart of the Mars Hill Seattle
contextualization comes from their belief that Jesus was the perfect
missionary. A missionary is one who comes into a foreign culture to spread the
gospel. Thus, Jesus left the culture of heaven, came to the earth’s culture by
emptying Himself (Phil 2:4-6) and taking on human flesh in order to convey
God’s message to His image-bearers. Driscoll says that he and the other
leadership at Mars Hill are missionaries to the Pacific
Northwest and they should contextualize with the people in that
area as they would in any other area of the world. His views are expressed in
more detail in a recent message he gave titled “Jesus is a Better Missionary.”[15]
Relation to Other Movements
Seeker-sensitive
It is quite curious that although
emerging churches are very focused on reaching post-modern people in their
culture that they are still somehow very much against seeker-sensitive churches
for the most part. It could be said that emergent churches are more aligned
with the seeker-sensitive movement due to their sacrifice of theological
positions (which is also a characteristic of seeker churches).[16]
Acts 29, evangelical, and monastic emerging churches all reject the idea behind
seeker-sensitive churches because of their methodology that seemingly keeps
truth minimal and elevates style.
Fundamentalism
Emerging churches are not connected
to fundamental churches because their methodological ideals could not be any
farther apart. In the eyes of Driscoll and the boys, fundamentalists are the
Parasitical sect of today’s Christianity and, in turn, they become the butt of
many of his jokes. Fundamentalists like John MacArthur do not appreciate this
kind of tomfoolery from the pulpit.[17] [18] In
turn, fundamentalists disconnect themselves from the emerging church movement,
sticking to their own methodologies of contextualization in their churches.
The Future
The emerging church movement will
not last forever. Many of these pastors are young (under 50), cool (stylish
clothes, use social media), and energetic. Eventually, the pastors will turn
grey, the style will seem forced and not genuine, and the energy level will
undoubtedly decline. It is possible that others will carry on in the tradition
of Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Steven Furtick, and the other emerging pastors
around America,
but the movement has bound itself to the culture, so as the culture changes,
the movement will change. As Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the
sun,” (Ecc 1:9) and no culture or method is “new,” but just a different version
of an old concept. Thus, the emerging church concept will continue adapting
within the movement and one can only hope that there will be enough sensible
believers to hold on to conservative theology.
[3] Ibid.
[4] I heard this personally while at the boot camp.
Much was said about race and ethnicity. It is clear that there is an
“Affirmative Action” mindset among these ministers.
[5] Mark Driscoll was fine with T.D. Jakes’ presence
on James MacDonald’s Elephant Room conferences which were “by Christians
and for Christians.” Driscoll approved of Jakes’ Trinitarian theology in
the latest volume of the video series. Also, Matt Chandler recently spoke at
the Catalyst Conference in Atlanta
alongside a female pastor and television producer Mark Burnett, whose faith is
unclear.
[14]
Murrow, Why Men Hate Going to Church, 137-138
No comments:
Post a Comment