Attention: Fans of Rob Bell, Donald Miller, et. al. This means fans of Velvet Elvis, NOOMA, SexGod, Blue Like Jazz...and other emergent books/authors.
Finally finished reading "Why We're Not Emergent."
I highly suggest you read it to understand some of the serious objections to the emergent church.
The point isn't to draw our weapons so that we keep ourselves occupied. There are significant issues at stake. And in a day when questioning and uncertainty are in vogue I value solid scriptural sharp thinking. I value leaders who are dedicated to doctrinal soundness and theological discernment, as well as social justice, community, and compassion.
6 comments:
There is a confusing of terms here. There is a difference between Emergent and emerging. Emergent (big E) is very liberal, while emerging churches aims for being missional. One needs to be careful not to lump them together which is the tendency for these categories (and critics of the movement). One can still learn from both Emergent and emerging since they offer incredible insight in ecclesiology. I take the posture of learner rather than critic.
I think some of the 'emergent opponents' could probably a have much stronger (and winsome) argument if most of the writers who rail against 'emergent churches' (whatever that means - who groups people into emergent and non-emergent, anyway?) actually take the time to read the 'offending' books first. It's like trying to tell an atheist that you you are qualified to do tell them that there is definitely a God because you've read apologetics but without actually ever reading any atheists' work completely without a "I'm going to destroy your logic" agenda going into it. It's hard to build a bridge of understanding that way, and to be honest that way of drawing people back to the truth just doesn't seem... Christ-like.
All men are sinners. I'm going to stand by the Nooma series and Sex God and say that in my opinion, those are theologically sound materials. Whether you like the style or approach is another question. Rob Bell is flawed, but so is Driscoll all the way down to each of us. Instead of having a "us versus them" mentality, maybe it's time for denominations to have a respectful and honest discussion instead of the finger-pointing and labeling 'in the name of sound doctrine.'
But, I am going to read this book, maybe after I'm done with Death By Love. :)
Anyone who is interested in understanding more about the criticism of the Emergent movement should read two good papers on it. The first paper is by David Mills responding to a series of lectures D.A. Carson gave on the emerging church (based on Carson's book). Mills notes that Carson's criticism of the emerging movement is based nothing more than hearsay and not actual engagement with the leaders of the movement.
http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/millsd/mills_staley_response.pdf
Second is John Hammett's paper on the emerging church. His examination is a more balanced and fairer than other critics of this movement.
http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf
Lastly is my own paper written on the emerging church and syncretism which was the first prize winner at the 2007 eastern regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Critics of the movement charge the emerging church with syncretism. But in my paper, I question who really has a hold on orthodoxy. Even those who claims to have a grip of "orthodoxy" are rarely aware of how their own cultural contexts have influenced their assumptions about orthodoxy.
http://semaphoric.org/files/SteveHu-ETS.pdf
To your comments I say YES. Which is why you should take the time to read the book written by guys who:
1. @Steve -assess what we can learn from the movement (the book also discusses the emergent/emerging difference) but also calls what's wrong, wrong-as Paul did to Peter and as we all ought to.
2. @Grace - when you read the book you'll see that the authors read Bell's books, watched NOOMA, attended lectures, classes, talks and church services held by emergent leaders. On the point of discussion-the reality is one cannot go on discussing indefinitely on everything without reaching a perspective or stance. It is the same as finally deciding to never decide and to know only that you can never really know. As CS Lewis said, to see through everything is to see nothing at all. Some areas we should discuss and die over. Others we should not discuss, we defend-man's depravity (not inherent goodness), penal substitution (not divine child abuse), the reality of a God who sends people to Hell because they, in fact, are not forgiven (not all are forgiven & we choose our reality, a la Bell).
As a learner and as one who desires a thought out critique I again simply say, "read the book."
PS. @Grace - this comment took me a while to write on my iPhone.
RCCC disclaimer:
This was a blog and endorsement by me, not necessarily reflective of RCCC (clearly).
Edit: Some things we should discuss and *not* die for/over
Post a Comment