Current Thoughts on the Emergent Movement

I just finished reading a book called Why We're Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Someone gave it to Julie and me for a wedding gift. At first glance, I thought it was a stupid book. I thought, "I know there is a key difference between the 'emerging church' and 'Emergent,'" but this book lumps everything together.

Essentially, the emerging church is just the way that churches are changing to reach postmodern people. Emergent, on the other hand, is a network whose most well-known voice is Brian McLaren. They tend to downplay the authority of Scripture and the need for theology/doctrine at all, while emphasizing postmodern philosophical ideas, and being authentic about how you relate to people. Emergent is not an organization, but a "conversation." Those involved say that they do not agree with each other on everything, and they also don't believe in statements of faith.

Before reading the book, my friend Aaron had a lot of questions and challenges for the emerging/Emergent movement. I tried to answer some of them. I used to be involved in the Stirring when I was in Redding, and many people would classify that as an emerging church. But I don't think many people who are/have been involved in leadership there really care what kind of church it's classified as.

Aaron also had some issues with Rob Bell. I liked Rob Bell, and read his first two books. Both of them and his nooma videos and sermons I've heard all sounded good. But Aaron brought up some good points. I hadn't thought of Rob Bell as part of the Emergent network before, and he doesn't claim to be, but he does acknowledge that McLaren is a key influence on him.

My biggest beef with Bell in the past was that he didn't give very good citations. He says a lot of things about Hebrew culture and the Rabbis with zero references. And I know he's wrong about some things, because I have a degree in Old Testament studies and studied under one of the top 3 Hebrew scholars in the world (not bragging, just saying that Bell is less qualified as a scholar--not as a communicator or leader).

So, anyway, I checked out the blogosphere, which is very dangerous when it comes to discussing the emerging church, because most people either hate it or are a part of it, and hate regular American evangelicalism.

The best critique I found was from Mark Driscoll, who is the pastor of the other Mars Hill Church, which is in Seattle. He is also known as "Mark the swearing preacher."

Also, he is friends with John Piper, who is probably the most well-respected Pastor-Theologian of our day. If Piper likes Driscoll, then Driscoll isn't a dummy.

Driscoll actually used to be a part of the Emergent network in its early days, but left as the other key leaders became more liberal theologically. Now Driscoll pastors a very cool, fast-growing emerging (not Emergent)church. He criticizes Emergent, and includes Rob Bell in there. He breaks down the other categories in the emerging church as 1. Evangelicals with new methods, 2. House churches, and 3. Reformed churches with new methods, which is almost like the first category, but just kind of reformed.

I really like Driscoll's categories. I think my favorite type of church would be in the first category, while I personally probably am most like the third category, as I like a lot of Calvin's thoughts.

Anyway, the reason I wrote this blog is because I read a book, so here's the deal with the book. At the beginning, in the introduction, the authors say they aren't going to take the time to distinguish between emerging and Emergent. That is a bunch of crap! That automatically drops them on the credibility scale. This is a key difference.

But I like the rest of the book, pretty much. I would call myself a pretty stereotypical emerging Christian, because I like a lot of postmodern thought, gravitate towards mystery, am kind of artsy, am 20-something, have thick-rimmed glasses, love coffee, voted for Obama, and when I drank (which I did occasionally--maybe a dozen times in my life--before I was a pastor) my favorite beer was Guinness (actually, it was pretty much the only beer I liked). I also like the ideas of relativism (with the understanding that there are still absolutes), storytelling, mystery (my understanding is different than a typical Emergent view), social justice, and the blending of the charismatic, evangelical, and liturgical veins of Christianity.

But, the book pointed out some huge flaws in the thoughts of not only the Emergent movement but the thoughts of people like me. I had come to a lot of the same conclusions on my own, but more were added by reading this book. To sum up the book without going into the details, DeYoung, who writes the more theological/scholarly chapters, argues that the American Evangelical church is too fundamentalist or canned sometimes, and that the Emergent church has a great rebuke for those problems. However, their solutions aren't always so great. The Emergent movement creates many dichotomies, and essentially over-corrects the problems of the American Evangelical movement. Instead of leaning too far to one side or the other, we should really embrace both sides, but we have to affirm that Jesus came to save our souls first, because the rest is worthless without that.

I gave a pretty similar answer to a question at church in our Q&A time a few weeks ago. It's the last question in the clip (around 90% of the way through). I assumed the question was about N.T. Wright, whose theology is that the Gospel is mostly a political announcement of the kingdom of God. John Piper counters (he wrote a whole book to counter Wright) that yes, it is important that the Gospel is political, but most importantly, Jesus' gospel is that he has atoned for our sins and saved us.

____________________________________________

The book also pointed out a lot of problems with Rob Bell. Essentially, Bell teaches good morals. The bulk of his audience have grown up in the Church, so his teaching sounds deep and fresh, but to anyone else, it's just good morals. Living like Jesus did is only enough if it follows being empowered by him.

And I used to agree with the whole idea of Bell's "Dust" topic, that Jesus thinks that we are capable of following him. But, that idea has to be in tension with the idea that we are utterly incapable of anything but by the Holy Spirit.

I think I may go back and re-read Velvet Elvis to see how much of it I still like. In any case, I think that Rob Bell's books should only be read by people with theological soundness, since his stuff is pretty watered-down and weak. I will probably still use the Nooma videos, because there is room to teach the half-truths that Bell teaches as long as there is also time to teach the other half.

By the way, don't we usually teach half-truths? It takes a long time--eternity--to fully cover the truth.

Anything taught without explaining one of its counterparts in the paradox of God is insufficient, so it is my aim to try to emphasize both sides of any theological truth to create a more wondrous, mysterious (in the true sense, not in the ambivalent, Emergent sense) view of God.