A Quick Review of Phil Sanders Article “The Emerging Church Movement.”
I noticed last week that Phil was having an article in the Gospel Advocate concerning the Emerging Church Movement (July 2008). This was a pleasant surprise because this trend in Christianity has been gaining momentum within the Christian culture. Leadership Magazine is predominantly an emerging magazine and most of the forward thinking Universities in the brotherhood are teaching some of the methodology of the emerging movement. I was thankful for someone of Phil’s standing to interact with this new trend. Phil has been at the forefront of some of the modern changes in society. He was one of the first to interact with the Postmodern Movement within the church. It seems that sometimes those on the far right are so preoccupied with pointless disputes while those on the left are seeking any new thing, that some of the new trends in Christianity are not dealt with in a reasonable fashion. Thank you Phil for being up to date on the current world.
Phil is correct in stating that “religion rarely remains stagnant.” A few years back the big rage was church growth movement in the model of Saddlebacks or Willow Creek. There is a new trend in town. Phil is correct in stating that emergents are from the postmodern currents in the world. It is an attempt to community the Gospel in a postmodern society. With this background, there is the desire to remove any absolute truth. This is a shame as truth is absolute. Also, I was not aware of the pluralistic feelings within some of the emergents. I was under the impression that most of these individuals still held to a Christ-Centric salvation. This might not be true all of the emergents, but I have seen some of these desires expressed in the blog world as Phil has. I was thankful that Phil pointed out the desire for restoration theology within the emergent movement. This is an admirable desire but is not true to the restoration ideas. It could be more in line with Bill Hybels slogan of being an Acts 2 church. It sounds great, but in practice it misses the restoration thought. A lot of people will be taken in because of this restoration sounding terminology. Of course because of the post-modern thought, there is the placing of the heart over the head within the movement. There seems to be an increased tolerance for sin in order to be missional. The sense of experience is exalted to the point where truth has little bearing on the development and doctrine of the emergent movement.
Overall, Phil Sanders’ article was excellent. He pointed out some of the extremes of the emergent movement and warned the unsuspecting reader from falling into the errors of the movement. The emergent movement is a reaction to harsh Christianity and to the Church Growth Movement. It is desiring to balance out the extremes which usually begets another extreme. The only thing else I would have enjoyed reading in the article is some of the positive lessons that one can learn from the emergent movement. But I know Phil had 2400 words into this article, in other words, he did not have room to include everything. He felt that it would be best to sound a warning at this point in the conversation before opening up to some of the methodology of the emergent movement that one can learn from today. There is some ideas of being missional, of being connecting, and being experiential and not just logical that can add to the expression of Christianity. We need to thank men like Phil for interacting with the changing currents of Christianity. I look forward to his lectures and material on this new perspective in the culture.
Related posts:
- Worried About the Mega-Church Movement
- Movement In Sermons
- Article on Missional Evangelism
- Article in the Gospel Advocate
- Loyalty to the Movement
About The Author
I haven’t read the article but I will when I get my hands on it. Based on your description of what he wrote some of that is true and some is not. The problem is trying to put a label on this group or categorize the movement as this or that is very, very hard to do. The emerging church prides itself on not being about “one size fits all”. Instead they prefer the term “organic.” If you hear them speak you will hear them say we did this and that but it may not work for you and your setting quite how it did for us. They are reacting to mega church and understand that mega church often put the Christian in the audience. Emerging church stresses ancient forms of worship (hence the Restoration principles you mentioned although not quite how we would define it), a move toward simplicity in the worship (which we would appreciate), and making Christians active participants in the kingdom rather than sitting in a stadium or as an audience member/spectator.
The problems he mentions are mostly at the extremes and again are not held by all. This is not something you can easily define and so as soon as you say they are easy on sin you find out most aren’t. I think there is a lot of good in this movement and trying to logically categorize it will not work very well.
Also, there is not a rejection of truth for experience. It is more of a pendulum swing to say both/and rather than either/or. They just might have a harder time with some of the absolutes traditional Christianity has held onto. Again, that is a broad categorization that is not entirely true of the movement as a whole.
This is a conversation we need to be in on. Have a look at this article
I must admit that I am not a fan of emergent church theology (although I may not be opposed to some of their methodology). From my experiences, I have seen people and churches who embrace emergent church theology become weak in their commitment to healthy biblical truth but strong in their denunciation of those who believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father or that something like homosexuality is a sin. I am concerned that those who embrace this theology will destroy churches as they undermine others who want to take the Bible for what it says. They tend to mock people who believe that the Bible is accurate and that it can be understood. This movement has the potential to destroy a person’s openess to the truth that Jesus Christ really is essential to our lives. I have seen the aftermath of this theology in a few churches and it’s not a pretty sight.
I have not had much experience with this theology in the real world. Most of it is from reading and the educational environment. You are right Matt, it is hard to deal with a movement because it is made up of individuals. I like the getting involved instead of sitting in the studium as you put it. I see too much sitting and not enough working. You are right Terry, we do not want to lighten the truths that you mention in your post. I still believe like you that I can understand my bible, not perfectly, but I can.
It is no secret that we are losing our young people. That is not just in the churches of Christ but across Christianity as a whole. Part of the reason for that is a breakdown in culture between the generation who are now in church leadership and Gen X/Y. That has to be bridged if we are going to reach people and it has to be bridged without compromising the core components of our faith. The good news is that these young people want to really be connected with God, enjoy ancient forms of worship, and don’t want a flashy concert atmosphere. Those are real pluses in the church of Christ and I think we have a lot going for us moving forward. But we do have to move forward and we cannot keep thinking that the old “Yes/No” back people into a corner type Bible study check lists are going to reach the lost of this generation. They are just not that logical.
I like what Matt Dabbs said, “that these young people want to really be connected with God, enjoy ancient forms of worship, and don’t want a flashy concert atmosphere.” This is what our relationship with Christ should be about; simplicity. Younger generations definitely want something real and some congregations are not giving it. Those who have been blessed with the task of preaching and teaching need to reach out to the hearts of those listening and help them see what the Gospel can do for them. The Church doesn’t need another activity or distorted philosophy. It needs dedicated disciples of Christ to show the Gospels’ true intellectual and emotional depth.
I have not read the article but I would be surprised to find anything in the GA that is complimentary to something different from the traditional CoC, since the GA seems mostly preoccupied with trying to regulate their ever narrowing view of doctrine upon its readers. That is my opinion from what I read for the last two years when someone anonymously gave me a 2-year gift subscription. The polemical tone I often found seemed more about indotrination than sprititual transformation and discipleship.
Having said that, I will give Phil Sander the benefit of the doubt since I have not read the article. Now, I realize his book “Adrift” is about ten years old and he (as with anyone) can change his views in 10 years time. However, if the book is any indication about his understanding of postmodernism it shows that he does not understand postmodernism at all. The book was just a polemical rant that treated postmodernism as the ultimate evil while never addressing all of the dangers found in the modern philosophical paradigm that he operated out of in the book.
As far as emergent theology rejecting absolute truth… except for a few extremes, there is just as much belief in absolute truth as with the modernists (and there were some in modernism that denied truth).
And who says that the restoration desire within emergent theology isn’t closer to what God had in mind. Some of the restoration ideals the CoC cherishes so much are very questionable as to whether they are really what God intended for his church.
Rex
Matt, I think you are completely right in stating that our young people are not going to convert with “backed in the corner bible studies.” I have seen these, and like you have rejected this style of evangelism. Dale and Rex, thank you for your imput. This conservation is one that is very interesting to me and one that is needed and helpful for the future of the church.
The heart over the head “trick” is rampant in denominations and I’ve even seen it practiced in the church. Once I saw a preacher tell a sad story about a puppy, get some folks upset, then offer the invitation. It worked, but I think it’s a cheap trick to getting someone to walk down the aisle. I look forward to reading Phil’s article.
Thanks for your review.
Paula, the puppy trick would not have worked well on me. I struggle with my love for dogs. It all started when brother and I were replaced with two annoying muds when we moved out.
Paula, those denominations are part of the church just as our denomination (or fellowship if you prefer) is part of the church.
Rex
Heart over head – where do we get that idea?
Modern thinkers need to have their head worked on before their heart is changed. Post-modern thinkers need their heart to be touched before they are willing to listen with their mind. Both end up with heart and head. It is just that each starts from a different place. In the words of Jerry and Lynn Jones “Not right or wrong – just different.”
Just because someone gives their heart and head to Christ in an order different than you do does not mean it is less legitimate. I think we need to get that straight.
The most virulent critics of emerging churches are those who are loosing members to them. Traditional evangelical leaders from the SBC to cofC are writing and speaking against the emerging churches. But here is reality. Very few of the critics have actually met with, dialogued or attended with these emergents.
First most all believe that the Bible is the word of God. Also almost all believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and is the only way to God. There are a relative few that differ from the above. Now what is different between emerging churches and traditional evangelical and mainline churches is their approach to scripture and subsequent theology then is their attitude toward those of differing belief. They are not arrogant or judgmental but humble in approaching dialogue. In his book “The New Christians” Tony Jones explains this phenomenon. He says that emergent Christianity is a response and even sometimes a back fire to the modernistic religious dogma of the past century. He says what happens when you tell your children to study the Bible for themselves and they come up with different ideas, conclusions, and questions than the previous generations. He says if we wanted to keep Christianity locked in a dungeon of modern assumptions then the conservative evangelicals should not have encouraged their generation X and Y children to study the scriptures for themselves. Oh and Phil deleted this same comment from his blog because it did not agree with his opinion. We actually helped start what many would call an emergent church in Conway AR and none of what Phil describes was a part of who we were. If he actually talked to Brian McClaren and others like him instead of just reading their writings then I think he would have a different understanding of what emerging Christianity really is. Phil’s suggestion like many others is to censor any ideas from the emerging Christians from our Christian Universities. Here is the thing the more the church of Christ brotherhood leaders try to tighten their grip through censorship, or things like the article and petition against instrumental music that was published in the Chronicle last October the more people will exit to emerging churches or no church at all.
As we all know, there are certainly things about postmodernism that are not too friendly to a Christian worldview. But there are certainly aspects of modernism that are as equally unfriendly to a Christian worldview. Sadly, some Christians seem very capable of seeing all of the potential problems with postmodern thought but seem completely unaware of the problems with modern thought (which happens to be the paradigm from which they are unknowingly operating from).
I am not trying to pick on Paula:-) but when the head (cognitive) is pitted against the heart (emotive), the modern paradigm appears to be elevated above postmodern paradigm. Matt is correct. We need both the heart and mind and ever the “greatest command” demands it. We must resist the temptation to elevate one over the other, though we all will struggle with such an endeavor.
When we speak of head and heart (again, cognotive and emotive), we must keep in mind that our goal for ourselves and others is to be transformed disciples of Jesus Christ. The level of committment that it takes to become transformed disciples is one that seems impossible unless we are committed with both head and heart. Head – We need to believe that what we are committing ourselves to is a credible faith (i.e., why is faith in Jesus Christ rather than Muhammad or Gautama Buddha). Heart – We need a passion for Jesus Christ that is so deep that we hunger to grow in our communion with God and his mission (i.e., that our belief becomes action rather than just intellectual agreement). However, this is where the Christian worldview runs against both modern and postmodern thought because we believe that it is God who is soveriegn over the world and not humanity (modernism) or just a group of higher powers (postmodernism). And therefore we believe that to become transformed disciples, it is God who must do the transformative work in us.
Great conversation!
Rex
I would like to ease some concerns of some of your readers with sympathies toward the emergent church movement. I am not opposed to a change in attitudes within the church. We need more humility and kindness. I am not opposed to changes in methodology. We need more openess in many congregations. We need to be able to share our burdens and struggles within the assembly without fear of judgment. We need to praise God with sincere emotions…whether with smiles, tears, raised hands, or bowed heads. I am opposed to the theology I have seen within the emergent church movement which diminishes Christ as the only Savior and the Bible as accurate. As I see it, the true debate about the emergent church movement is not about methodology; it is about theology. I realize that the response will be that only a few teachers advocate such concepts. However, those teachers are tolerated, heard, read, and respected by many disciples. That is my concern.
Terry;
Your are correct, it is about theology. Most of the emergents have developed in direct reaction to the arrogance of modern Christianity. Their theology asks more questions and rejects all the inconsistencies made by modern assumptions as they relate to how to approach the scripture. For instance many think that emergents are soft on sin. This could not be further from reality. They treat all sin the same as something to overcome. So when the struggle of homosexuality is dealt with the same as lying, gossip, greed or any of the nice sins, traditional modern Christianity thinks that they are being soft on sin. A study was recently conducted and found that people who were affiliated with emergent style churches were three times more likely to change or overcome parts of their personal behavior as sins as those who were in traditional churches. These things range from over eating to homosexuality. The theology that basically ignores greed but does not allow people who struggle with homosexuality in the door is wrong in their opinion. The theology that outlaws instrumental music but allows large expensive buildings again is an inconsistency. Inconsistencies from any angle for them are systemic of poor theology. Methods are essentially a result of theology that is why their methods differ from other modern versions of western Christianity.
I agree Rex that we need the heart and the mind on the same page in order to become mature Christians, however, I was making the point that sometimes one will toy with another’s emotions in order to get them to respond to the invitation. Unless you’re telling the story of the cross, I disagree with this stratagem.
And Rex, you should know that I don’t like the term “denomination” when speaking of the church
I have enjoyed reading some of the thoughts concerning the emergent movement. I have learned alot. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Though, I do feel the need to stand along side Phil, because of this statement of “Phil’s suggestion like many others is to censor any ideas from the emerging Christians from our Christian Universities.” Recently, I had lunch with Phil, which I must admit is an honor for me to do so. He is a busy and bright man, I am a small town preacher in a medium size congregation. I am not that important, but Phil has always taken my calls and has fellowshipped with me on a few occasions. I have a deep respect for Phil as a man of God. As for the comment, it seems to me in my naive perspective that we must be careful about assigning motives to a brother in the Lord. From my intereaction with Phil, on these topics, it is more of a desire to interact with the movement, not to be a religious police department. I feel that it is best in the church to believe the highest motives of one another. This is where I stand on that. Also, I was a little sad about the reaction to Paula, though I was happy to see the response of gentleness. Thank you, brother. You are one of the people I enjoy listening to and interacting with the most, and you meant no harshness in your comments. Paula is a sweet preacher’s wife, as I am sure she hears enough comments about her and her family, because of that I will always stand by the side of someone who has chosen to support a man of God in his work. Whether right or wrong, she deserves all the love and mercy because of her work. Thank you for respecting my words on these matters and I hope that all always feel welcomed and loved on my blog. I see it as community, not that we always see eye to eye, but we always strive to be church.
Thank you Matthew for your kind words, however, I am not a preacher’s wife. I am though a preacher’s daughter, granddaughter, sister, and niece
Paula,
I agree that using emotional tactics can become manipulation and this is never good. I have seen it done in a variety of ways, playing on peoples fears, shame, etc… In my experience, people who have made decisions on emotions alone tend to fall back on that decision whenever the burden of fear, shame, etc…, is removed.
Any ways, I do not like the word “denomination” associated with the church either because Christ never intended his church to be a body of many denominations. Unfortunately and sadly, the reality is that is what Christians (including us in the CoC) have turned the body of Christ into — especially when we speak of our own fellowship as the sum total of the entire body of Christ.
Matthew,
I don’t know why you would be upset about some of the responses. People express opinions and other people further the conversation through agreement or disagreement. I surely expect some to disagree with my views and welcome their expressions of such disagreements. I always hope that my disagreements come accross in a kind manner, as I do not wish to be unchristian in my response to any.
Terry,
I am not sure that I agree that emmergent conversations are all about theology. Nevertheless, the late Stanley Grenz, John Franke, Reggie McNeal, Miceal Frost, Alan Hirsch, and Brian McLaren are some of the names that have been conversent in the emmergent movement and I have not heard or read where either of them were flexible with the doctrine of Christ.
Rex
These are two books that were written to help traditional mainline and evangelical churches understand emerging Christianity. Most critics do not understand it but simply read about it and then tell their churches to be careful of it.
“The New Christians” by Tony Jones and “After the Baby Boomers, how twenty and thirty somethings are shaping the future of Christianity in America” by Dr. Robert Wuthnow. They explain that emerging Christianity does believe Jesus is the only way to God and that they do believe the Bible is God’s word. In fact Robert Wuthnow shows that many younger Christians from liberal mainline protestant churches left to start emerging churches when their previous churches left the ideas of Jesus as the only way to God and the inspiration of scriptures. Here is the difference in theology they reject all modern assumptions on how to approach the scripture.
Does this sound familiar? Any body can pick up the Bible and read it for themselves and find God. This is a strong tenet of emerging Christianity. Funny thing is this was a pillar of the restoration movement. Only the idea was that if everybody just read the Bible for themselves they would all come to the same conclusions. Well when we will realize the myth? Emerging Christianity is a result of 100 years of protestant evangelical and some mainline churches telling their children to read the Bible for themselves, and they did. They just came up with different conclusions.
I am not making assumptions about Phil. He is probably a very nice guy as many people are in the church in TN. I did not attack his character. I do not personally know him. But he does suggest that we censor the ideas from emerging Christianity from the universities associated with the churches of Christ. I posted a comment very similar to the first comment I posted on this thread topic on his blog and it was moderated for some reason. I am not suggesting he deliberately deleted it. It just never got past moderation. On some other blogs my posts have been moderated because I did not agree with the author. They did not attack the author personally but offered objective ideas, evidence and arguments to the contrary. I would challenge all of the critics of emerging Christianity to go and meet and get to know those whom we would publicly castigate our opinion will most likely change as mine did. If it is truly a battle of ideas then we have nothing to fear, for God does not need us to defend his truth. But if this behavior of criticism is based on fear that emerging Christianity is picking up disgruntled members of other traditional churches that is a different story. I remember when a Pharisee in Acts who was disturbed at how the Apostles were growing Christianity by converting Jews said “If this is a movement of men it die out on it’s own, if this is a movement of God then nothing will stop it.” Maybe we should listen to this statement in our response to emerging Christianity.
Rex,
“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts”—Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy.
Syncretism is flexible with the doctrine of Christ at the most basic level. Early disciples of Christ were instructed to turn away from idolatry, not to add Jesus to their idols. He is the exclusive Savior and Lord. You may not have known about such syncretic teachings among emergents, but they do exist, and I disagree with them.
I want to add that I have nothing personal against anyone participating in this conversation. If anyone has felt any disrespect from me, please understand that it was unintentional. I appreciate Matthew for bringing up this conversation and allowing all of us to participate.
Terry,
I understand how such a statement could seem syncrenistic in a Western Christendom society and it certainly could be syncrenistic but I would need to speak with McLaren more about that (when I heard him speak, he ardently defended discipleship as transforming people into believers who are soley committed to Jesus Christ). In the New Testament, it seem that early Christianity was quite willing to help Jews become follower of Jesus but leave them in their Jewish context.
Rex
Matthew-
Don’t worry about our brethren in the one true church who are sympathetic to the “Mclarenites”. The denominations are beginning to come out against the Emerging Church Movement so eventually popular opinion and fear of denominational peer rejection will bring them full circle to reject this Movement in about 10 years or so.
Go Phil!! HooRah
Don,
You wrote, “…eventually popular opinion and fear of denominational peer rejection will bring them full circle to reject this Movement in about 10 years or so.”
That’s encouraging. It’s not often that I’m ahead of a trend:)
In ten years? In ten years if the trend continues 300+ net churches of Christ will close down (merge or disband)in the continental USA and 1000 more churches that fit the non-denom emergent profile will open up and be filled with young people from traditional mainline and evangelical churches. This is supported by data published both within and outside of the churches of Christ. All you have to do is open the book by Mac Lynn and get in your car and drive around for month visiting all the churches of 100 members or less that are made up of predominantly old white people. I have been traveling the USA with since I was child with my Dad. We actually have a list of a whole bunch of churches all over the USA that have already decided to disband this year. These are churches that use to give to brotherhood organizations such as Children’s Homes and World Bible School for which my Dad raised money. It is time to stop focusing on the error of other churches. If the churches of Christ were defined in the last century by their ability to answer abstract theological questions then they will be defined in this century by their ability to put their theology to work. We can continue to argue amongst ourselves and try to point to what we perceive as error in the other denominations and emerging churches or we can do what Jesus did heal, feed, comfort, relieve social injustice, ease suffering, visit the imprisoned, etcetera. I don’t know if Phil has met Brian or dialogued with him. I have and I can tell you that Phil is taking this excerpt from his book out of context. Brian does not believe or encourage the things that many suppose as is the truth with most. For instance the Cross Timbers Community church started by Toby Slough who was reared in the churches of Christ and went to ACU worked as a minister at Northisde church of Christ in San Antonio. He was publicly castigated and supposed to have taught all kinds of beliefs that he did not simply because the church did not have cofC in the name. They supposedly had left the doctrine of baptism. They baptized about 1500 last year. But because they actually focus on bringing people to real faith before dragging them to the baptistery, they were labeled as non-baptizers and therefore apostate. I think most of these issues would resolve themselves if people would go and dialogue face to face with those they would label heretics, false teachers or any of the like.
Joe brings up an interesting point. Let’s say you decide Emerging Church is in error and is a bunch of foolishness. The question then is now what? If you think they are going about making a difference in the world all wrong then what are you prepared to do? Have all the right answers? Okay, doctrine and truth are important and essential. But what are you going to do with that? If you aren’t prepared to roll up your sleeves and start helping the hurting and reaching the lost then I have a real problem with you tirading against those who have decided to at least try. I don’t agree with everything about the Emerging Church but I do see a group of people who love Jesus and are trying desperately hard to make a difference. Something tells me there is something good happening there that is absent in a doctrinally sound congregation that has all the right answers but isn’t willing to be salt and light and sits in the pews doing next to nothing.
Am I saying doctrine is not important? No. I am saying that I think the Emerging Church understands something we have missed. They may not have all their ducks in a row and I certainly think there are doctrinal problems with portions of the movement but I do see people who are willing to actually do the things most of us only find ourselves talking about. That part of the movement I wish I could be more like and am doing what I can to let that help me be more effective in real life ministry.
Matt, I see your point in your comments. I am very willing to learn from that which is good and reject that which is bad. The only book of Mclaren was “More Than You Realize.” It was a helpful book for evangelism and of developing spiritual friendships instead of debating partners.
Joe and Matt,
You are right about the need to reach people with the good news of Christ, help people in need, guide our children to faith in Christ, and oppose injustice. However, if you believe that I am not interested in doing that simply because I disagree with the emergent church movement, please visit my blog.
Terry:
I was not suggesting that at all, I have been to your blog and you seem like a pretty open minded guy that wants to good. My main point is this. Emerging Christianity is very mis-understood. They in many ways not all mirror values held by the churches of Christ. If people would talk to Brian about this specific part of his book, then they would realize their conclusions were and are not as they have reported. Most all believe in Jesus as the son of God and the inspiration of scripture. But their approach to scripture is the very antithesis of traditional approaches from evangelical protestant Christianity in the west.
Terry,
I don’t really know any of you except for Rex. I would have to know you to be able to say something like you are suggesting. I am not making any accusations about the ministry of anyone here. If I was talking to any of you in particular I would have addressed you with the comment. My comments here are mostly based on observations I have see regarding many in the church but not toward any individual in particular. My comments are intended to produce self-examination (myself included) and not as an attack or accusation. So if you are taking any of it personal then it is either hitting too close to home for you or you are just reading these things as if every statements is about you, which is not the case. Sorry if I didn’t communicate that well.
“get in your car and drive around for month visiting all the churches of 100 members or less that are made up of predominantly old white people. I have been traveling the USA with since I was child with my Dad. We actually have a list of a whole bunch of churches all over the USA that have already decided to disband this year. These are churches that use to give to brotherhood organizations such as Children’s Homes and World Bible School for which my Dad raised money. It is time to stop focusing on the error of other churches.”
OK, I’m up off the floor now.
Mirror, mirror on my visor
which is it
the pot or is the kettle wisor?
Joe and Matt,
Thanks for the responses. I apologize for getting back to you so late. It has been a busy day at work.
First, I’m sorry that I misjudged your comments previously. I thought that you were saying that people who oppose the emergent theology with which I have a problem are not willing to get involved in the world and make a difference for Christ. It reminded me of the arguments I have heard in the political arena, that pro-lifers care about children before they are born but not afterward. I have never felt such arguments to be fair. In fact, I have seen them as diversionary. I know that you were not aiming your comments specifically at me, but I was using myself as an example of someone who does care about the things you mentioned but who does not embrace emergent theology. I know that it looked like I was being thin-skinned. Perhaps I was, but I did not mean to be. I’m sorry about that.
I appreciate your explanations of your comments. Also, I appreciate your kind comments about my blog.
I must admit that I have not read Phil’s article. I will see if I can get it. I would not be able to draw any conclusions about it until I do.
A couple of questions however would be in order. Recognizing that those who have been called “Emergent” or “Emerging” belong to a Postmodern generation does not necessarily argue that is a bad thing. Phil’s generation, as with many before him, are part of a Modernist generation. Is it possible for a human being to not be shaped by that culture?
I have “church” at Starbucks every week (I am there every day though). I have a group of 11 to 15 folks who meet with me “religiously” on Thursdays … they are all Postmoderns. My question is how do I bring the Gospel to them. Does the Gospel have to be presented in Modernist terms? The fact that some of these are so enmeshed in PM that they cannot see it does not negate the fact that Phil and many of that generation were (are) just as enmeshed in Modernism & Enlightenment culture.
Just wondering?
Bobby Valentine
The funny thing about it is modern thinkers think Jesus was a modern thinker and post-moderns think he was more like a post-modern. We tend to think the early Christians also had the same problems with the text that we do. If we are not careful we end up making their culture our culture and make God in our image instead of visa versa.
Here is a link to another article about the same thing only this one slams all the churches of Christ that have implemented anything “emergent”.
http://brotherhoodnews.com/2008/05/23/faith-undone-by-emerging-church/
I stumbled across this blog today and was intrigued yet saddened by what I read. My husband and I were both reared in the church of Christ and both attended a Christian University affiliated with the cofC. My dad was a cofC preacher. I understand its doctrines, principles and traditions intimately. I have debated with many a person as to why the cofC believes as it does and why their teachings are the right way. I have experienced church splits over doctrinal issues and traditionalism. These issues include such things as why there are no instruments, why men should dress up when in front of the congregation, why we don’t raise our hands during worship, why women have a limited role in the church, why we meet on Sunday mornings, Sunday nights, and Wednesday nights, why we don’t eat in the auditorium, why we must dress up when we go to church, etc etc etc. I don’t need to write out the whole laundry list of things that the cofC defends because I know you all already know the list well as I’m sure you have had to debate some of the same issues or have seen churches split over these issues. Then one day while sitting in yet another family cofC meeting listening to brethern argue about things of traditionalism versus sound doctrine, it hit me. The question raced across my mind and I could think of no other thing. The question was, “What are you here to do?” It was as if God placed that question in my heart right there and then. I went home and thought and thought about that question. What am I here on earth to do? What AM I here on earth to do?? The answer was and should be the same for us all. It is what the great comission calls us all to do….”To bring others to Christ” Period. That is what I am here to do. That is what we are here to do. I went back to church and continued to watch people arguing amongst themselves over things of pure traditionalism. Not one argument was ever over what we were doing to reach out to others. Not one. It was always centered around one of the topics above. Church for these people was something they “did” like punching a time clock instead of being who they were. Church is who you are not just something you “do”. These problems and issues I realized were the same for every cofC I had ever been in since I was a child. Long story short, after much prayer, consideration and tears, we left the cofC. The first church we visited was Cross Timbers Community Church that Joe mentioned earlier in this thread. Going to a church outside of the cofC was one of the hardest things my husband and I have ever done. Yet, when we walked in that church that day, we felt like God was telling us that this is where we needed to be. It was a life changing experience. I won’t go on and on but I will say that the mission statement of that church is “Brining others to Christ in the context of authentic community”. We try to show others the love of Christ right where they are at in life not where they “should” be. We walk along side them in their journey from where they are at in life to the life God has called them to. While attending the church of Christ, I was always worried about inviting the unsaved to church. Worried what others would think of them, worried what they would think of the way people were acting in the church. I remember before inviting one lady to a cofC I was attending at the time, going into the preacher’s office and asking him if anyone would have a problem if I brought her to church because she was divorced. To the church I now attend (Cross Timbers), I feel comfortable inviting anyone there because I know they share the same goal as I – bringing others to Christ. I hope all of you know I am sharing all of this because I have walked out exactly what you all are sharing in this blog. I urge you not judge or label other churches who are doing what God has called us all to do. I honestly didn’t even know my church was labeled an “emergent” church until I visited this blog. I read the definition of an “emergent” church on Wikipedia and it defines such a church this way, “…participants seek to live their faith in modern society by emulating Jesus Christ irrespective of Christian religious traditions.” In many ways I agree with that. I think if you do something because it is a tradition and because that is the way you have always done it and it isn’t Biblically grounded then that is wrong. Traditions aren’t a bad thing but they should not replace what the Bible teaches and on many of the items I listed above, I think the cofC has lost sight of that. At Cross Timbers, we do believe in baptism (yes, it was over 1000 last year), we do partake in communion every week, etc. Like Joe said, don’t judge us before you’ve talked to us. We feel like we are holding fast to sound Biblical principles that Christ taught and have let go all the issues that keep us from doing what God sent us here to do….bring others to Christ.
Wonderful post.
I think we should be thinking more mission mindedly. I am encouraged by the emerging church movement in America. American’s need God now more than ever before.
Interesting…
I think some of us would do well to bone up on our Restoration history. In the middle of the last century the coC began to forget their roots and the pure ideals dreamed of by the Campbells, Stone, etc. The resulty is scores and scores of congregations, publishing houses, schools, and websites that still proudly claim a Restoration heritage but are “church” centered and not “Christ” centered.
We (coC folks) have become well known for our infighting, mainly about what we do or don’t do for two hours or so on Sunday morning. Then to add insult to injury some of us show just how shallow and errant our theology is by declaring everyone who does not do everything on Sunday just as we do apostate and bound for hell.
Thank God there is a new wind blowing, believers are meeting in shoe stores, coffee shops, apartment building meeting rooms, etc and are solidly in the fight to make Christ known and to minister to the whole man.
When Nicodemus came to Jesus, Jesus didn’t offer him a better religion, he had plenty of that. What he offered was himself. We seem to have forgotten that what dead men need is life, not religion, not a better kind of church, they need life and they only get that from the one who said “I am the resurrection and the life”.
A softer, kinder legalism is still legalism.
Royce Ogle
http://gracedigest.com
I just wanted to leave a comment and let you know how much i enjoyed reading your blog entries. You are an insightful person. Please keep me informed of anything major your writing in the future. Thanks Jim