A friend sent me a CD of John MacArthur speaking on “What’s so dangerous about the emerging church?” He begins by saying, “The bottom line, I think, in the movement is that it is a denial of the clarity of Scripture; it is a denial that we can know what the Bible really says.” At least in this interview, MacArthur made “truth” the only issue in the inherited / emergent church “conversation.”
(Next up: the often overlooked difference between Scripture and our understanding of Scripture.)
But talking about his leadership style, one emerging churches advocate said, “We are kingdom minded. If someone wants to start something, I approve it, providing the person is a part of the community and it doesn’t go against Scripture. We encourage people to be creative.” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 293). Hm-m-m, sounds like a rather high view of Scripture!
Tim Boal introduces helpful nuance into the debate by distinguishing between the "emergent" and "emerging" positions on Scripture. He observes that among emergent group spokespersons (McLaren & co.), "There has been an increasing tendency to replace a belief in absolute truth with an understanding of truth as perceived or experienced in community… It appears the emergent group has followed this path from its once solid starting point.”
In this conversation, we must remember that adoption of philosophical postmodernism inexorably leads to the loss of absolutes.
In contradistinction to the emergent movement, Tim says, “The emerging church differs from the emergent church within evangelical circles in that it primarily focuses on the forms and experiences of the local church community and how these contribute to or diminish true community. Many young evangelical leaders support and promote the idea of absolute truth.” (“Getting Real About the Emerging Church”, Tim Boal - June 2007)
I found this helpful and have adopted Tim's terminology. I concur with those emerging churches people who say that relationship is vital AND truth is absolute.
I believe (this is after all a question of faith) that all truth emanates from the infinite-personal Creator God. Jesus, God the Son, declared: “I am… the Truth” (John 14:6). And He who is the truth declared, “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). I believe therefore that:
* Revealed truth is objective — God has revealed truth both historically in Christ and propositionally in His Word.
* Revealed truth is knowable — as rational beings created in God’s image, we have the ability to know God’s revealed truth.
D.A. Carson’s “Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church” is much more nuanced than MacArthur’s treatment of the subject. Carson adroitly deals with the “truth” issue. One could even get the impression from his book that it is the ONLY issue in this “conversation” between modernist and postmodernist expressions of church. But in an off-the-cuff remark, he notes one of the great motivators that fostered the emerging churches movement: a strong sense of mission.
Carson states, “It is something inherent in the movement itself. The attempt to break out of what is perceived to be the holy huddle of traditional evangelicalism is driven, at least in part, by a concern for evangelism, in particular the evangelism of a new generation of people who are shaped by postmodern assumptions.” (Carson, 52) I would say that it is accurate to say that in general the emerging churches movement has “the goal of reaching the completely unchurched” (Carson, 39).
One emerging churches leader says his church is “refocusing to become a community that is intentionally missional.” Bolger and Gibbs go so far as to say, “Emerging churches… their structure is missional in nature”!
Another emerging churches proponent says, "'This may seem pretty basic and obvious, but so many people just don't get it. We are definitely all missionaries and evangelists. There are some who are more gifted for this stuff or have more of a focus on it, and they are the people who encourage and lead us in this area, but we’re all involved.' For emerging churches, to be a follower of Jesus is to live as a missionary” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 271, 107, 58).
Yet another emerging churches leader talks about this movement as a new reformation of the church, “Imagine that! A reformation built around mission and relationship…” (Carson quoting Chris Seay, 24).
Tom Julien has long preached that the 300 year focus of the Grace Brethren fellowship, to which I belong, has revolved around biblical truth, relationship and mission. I believe these time-tested, anabaptistic emphases provide reliable guiding principles for leaders to follow as they lead local churches into the postmodern, pre-whatever future.
What if local churches, rather than focusing on one or two of the above issues, espoused a tripartite focus, the emphases of the inherited AND emerging churches — the truth of Scripture, community and mission wedded in dynamic tension. Imagine that!
2 comments:
Paul, I agree with both Tom and you. As we are on biblical mission, living in biblical relationship, we teach biblical truth. Which leads to the comment I posted to your earlier blog (re: backdrop):
Paul, I actually do work and pray that we will be faithful to Christ's command to make disciples of all the nations. Other disciples of Christ are welcome to join us!
And now I would add: Don't you?
Hi Dan, I am not quite sure what you mean by "Don't you?" I hope I haven't offended in any way.
I am attempting to bridge generations as well as moderninst and postmoderinist expressions of local church. I believe that the Grace Brethren ethos is quite able to do this if we can focus on all three of those elements simultaneously — truth, relationship and mission. The problem is that one area generally dominates thus crowding out the others. So I am pointing out common deficiencies in the inherited and emerging expressions of church. That in no way means that all established churches or all emerging churches have these weaknesses.
Thanks for all you are doing to give a visible demonstration of these essentials! Looking up, paul
Post a Comment