The Best the Emerging Church Movement Has to Offer
I recently finished reading Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll is part of what has come to be known as The Emerging Church Movement. In sum, this movement seeks to integrate "relevant" culture into the local church (by "emerging" or changing) so that the local church will be attractive to unbelievers in our "emerging culture." They believe that once people are immersed/connected into a local church, they have better chances of converting to Christianity. Radical Reformission has finally given me the desire to read a couple of the most influential works promoting The Emerging Church Movement. I will then be able to respond more fully to the movement. In other words, expect further articles on this subject down the line =)
Driscoll's work was very disappointing overall. He claims Calvinistic beliefs yet fails to apply them consistently to his ecclesiology. From the outset of his book, he bases his argument on misunderstandings about the purpose and function of the gathered assembly (the local church). He believes that it is primarily the local church's responsibility to evangelize during the gathered meetings. Driscoll could not be more wrong. The local church is comprised of believers, not unbelievers. Therefore, the local church does not need to adapt its services to unbelievers. Certainly unbelievers are welcome to attend services. But we will not dumb down our messages for them. We will not change our singing style to 101.5 FM simply because that is what they are familiar with. We will not dress down to make them feel like we're at the beach. If an unbeliever shows up, members should go out of our way to preach the gospel to them - not make them feel comfortable.
Furthermore, why is Mark Driscoll, a professing Calvinist, acting like an Arminian? As a Calvinist, why does he believe that our church services need to attract unbelievers for them to be saved? Why are we trying to impress unbelievers with flashy lights, the best sound systems, singing styles, and the list goes on.
You know what movement seems analogous to the Emerging Church Movement? Seeker Sensitivism - that we must be sensitive to those who are seeking. Is this not what the Emerging Church Movement is trying to do? ... Attract unbelievers to our churches so that they will first convert to the church community, then to Jesus Christ?
I suppose I should note that like ALL movements, not everything about this one is bad. They have an earnest desire to see people saved. But their view of the local church and of evangelism is out in left field.
Leading Emerging Churches: Vintage Faith Church, Saddleback Church, Willow Creek. Emerging Church authors I shall force myself to read: Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, and others *sigh*. How sad that I have already finished the best of all the Emerging Church books. Even then, it's a terrible book. Movements come and go, but Christ's Church will not be shaken.
posted by rustypth @ 2:31 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I've heard great things about D.A. Carson's book on the emergent church called "Becoming Conversant with Emergent." I don't know if I would put Driscoll in the emergent church category but he does do things different. I don't know if you've gotten a chance to listen to any of his sermons (I haven't read the book only listened to the sermons) and hes quite far from the seeker sensitive movement. At times, maybe a little too far the other way, but it works.
Also I think there is a four views book out there on the emergent church. I heard that’s a really good one. The emergent church is a big issue and many people are sacrificing biblical truths to be what they may think is "relevant." The church shouldn't function like the world, the world should function like the church. But we'll never see that.
Although you make a great point about what is the church gathering for. I want to be biblical always and those areas that scripture doesn't speak to I want to challenge my cultural norms. Not just do something because I've always done it that way, otherwise I'd be catholic.
BTW, I haven't read the book but I have listened to sermons by him on the topics addressed in the book among other things.
Hey Ryan,
I guess I don’t have to label Mark Driscoll as part of the Emergent Church, because he does so himself. Shortly after the formation of his church, Mars Hill Church, he was invited to participate in a conference for young pastors. His sermon “was on the emerging culture of postmodernism ... A team of young pastors, including myself, was then formed by Leadership Network, and we flew around the country speaking to other pastors about the emerging culture and the emerging church,” (Radical Reformission. Pg. 16). Commenting on his travels, he states: “At the time, there was a growing national buzz about the emerging church in the emerging culture. This led to the founding of a number of networks led by young men like me, most of whom were friends and acquaintances and whom the Enemy baited with lust. ... some of the pastors from the original Leadership Network’s Young Leaders team had continued together without falling into temptation and have now resurfaced as the Emergent Village Network with Brian McLaren. ... Now that the time has come to write, I am presenting this book as a contribution toward the furtherance of the emerging church in the emerging culture” (Radical Reformission. Pg. 17). Driscoll concludes his introduction with: “I invite you to turn the page and begin a radical journey with me as we explore what life in Christ can mean in the context of an emerging church in a changing world” (Radical Reformission. Pg. 23).
...
I can safely conclude that Mark Driscoll considers himself one of the founding members of the Emerging Church Movement, and an active participant in this movement today.
No, I have not listened to his sermons as of yet. But I think you missed my point, that though he may be a staunch Calvinist, he has not consistently applied those Calvinistic beliefs to his ecclesiology. A Reformed view of the local church doesn’t function like an Arminian church whereby we make the building and the worship service aesthetically pleasing to attract unbelievers (arguments from his book). Then once unbelievers have converted to the local church, they will then convert to Christ (again, these are his arguments).
My point in comparing the Emerging Church Movement and Seeker-Sensitivism was to demonstrate that both movements try to make the local Church’s gatherings attractive to the unbeliever simply to get them inside their church buildings, and make them feel comfortable.
As I stated in my blog entry, Driscoll is the best that the Emerging Church Movement has to offer. He is Calvinistic, and therefore has some good theological things to say. However, he lacks the Biblical discernment to properly recognize the purpose and function of the local church. He is zealous for evangelism – praise God for that! But again, he applies Emerging Church beliefs to his view of evangelism.
I’m not into the “Four Views” books myself =), As I rarely see my view presented. My Greek professor and friend, Mike Porter, recommended a book by Martin Lloyd Jones titled Preachers and Preaching as a healthy balance from the insanity I will encounter from studying more of the Emerging Church Movement.
By the way, the Emerging Church desire to be “relevant” – which I mentioned in my blog entry, is stated many times in Driscoll’s book. I was using his terminology.
“The church shouldn’t function like the world, the world should function like the church. But we’ll never see that.” – I haven’t the foggiest idea what this means =)
I also want to challenge all of my traditions, whether they’re beliefs or practices. But this isn’t really what Driscoll’s book is about. Again, Driscoll’s purpose is to encourage local church’s to “constantly emerge” so they might appeal to the “emerging culture” around them and therefore have a more “relevant” ability to preach the gospel to them.
Hope this helps you.
In Christ,
Case of Base
Jeff,
To begin, I had no idea that you or Ryan regularly read my blog … be that as it may, I hope to respond directly and accurately to your comment.
You stated: “Firstly, and as something of an aside, I think that Ryan’s comments about Marks involvement in the emerging church have a little bit more credibility than you give them. I’m not arguing at all that Mark didn’t play a primary role in starting the movement, and has been given, for better or worse, a lot of credit for it.”
I’ve found it curious that neither you nor Ryan has attempted to interact with Driscoll’s own statements - that he not only was a key founder in the Emerging Church Movement, but also an active participant in this movement today. In my response to Ryan, I documented Driscoll’s thoughts about the Emerging Church Movement. More than that, I documented how he views his involvement today. Driscoll does more than claim to be a part of this movement. His views of the local church and application of “Reformission evangelism” is Emerging Church ideals. Therefore Driscoll can safely be labeled part of the Emerging Church Movement for two reasons: (1) His own testimony to that fact; (2) His view of the local church and of evangelism/missions is classified as Emerging Church.
You stated: “What I would say is that Mars Hill Church (Mark’s church) is not nearly as liberal in its theology and practice as “mainline” emerging church churches have become.”
I’m not sure why you said this as it is obvious from my blog entry (the title, for example) that I am in agreement with this statement. Mark Driscoll is the best that the Emerging Church Movement has to offer. You are correct that Mars Hill Church is not as liberal as other Emerging Churches. Driscoll’s church may have an emphasis upon doctrine (such as Calvinism) but this doesn’t change the fact that his view of the local church and evangelism is subbiblical.
You stated: “The concept of the emerging church has continued to move away from orthodoxy (theologically) while Mark has not.”
I agree with you that Driscoll is more theologically sound than Rick Warren and Brian McLaren (other leaders of the Emerging Church Movement), yet the purpose of my blog entry was to criticize the errors Driscoll makes in Radical Reformission. I stated in my entry that Driscoll is a Calvinist – something I am truly thankful for. But I have pointed out that Driscoll has not consistently applied his Calvinistic beliefs to his view of the church.
You stated: “All that is to say that while he was certainly part of the movement, and to some degree still considers himself to be part of it, it’s not fair to place all the attributes of the entire emerging church beneath his name, nor to presume that he endorses the theological liberalism that is spreading through it.”
Can you show me where I “place[d] all the attributes of the entire emerging church beneath his name”? Or where I presumed “that he endorses the theological liberalism that is spreading through [“mainline” Emerging Churches]”? You will find that I did not say anything remotely resembling such remarks. What I have been very clear about is the fact that Mark Driscoll says that he’s Emerging Church, and has Emerging Church views of the church and evangelism.
You stated: “Now, as to the central point of Mark’s book, I would ask you why it is that your understanding is that “He believes that it is primarily the local church's responsibility to evangelize during the gathered meetings.” While it does seem that he views this is a very high priority, it seems to be stretching to say he sees this as the primary view. Unless I missed some part of the book where he states this outright, it has not been my understanding. His sermons would certainly seem to indicate that he is teaching believers from scripture, not watering down the truth for the unregenerate.”
I should have paid closer attention to the sentence structure of this particular statement. What I meant to communicate was that Driscoll believes that evangelism primarily takes place during the meetings of the local church. Sorry for the confusion – that’s what I get for writing past midnight =). He states this belief on page 68-69. He has a chart comparing the “Routine Presentation” (aka the Biblical approach) versus the “Reformission Participation” (aka the Emerging Church approach). He believes that one must “belong to the church, then believe in Jesus.” Umm, excuse me? One cannot belong to Christ’s visible church until they have made a public profession of faith. He then goes on to say that unbelievers ought to date the church: “In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos. Reformission evangelism understands that the transformed lives of people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel. Therefore, it welcomes non-Christians into the church, not so much through evangelistic programs as through informal relationships like Jesus developed with his first disciples. In our church in Seattle, as lost people become friends with Christians, they often get connected to various ministries (for example, helping to run concerts, helping to guide a rock-climbing expedition, taking a class on biblical marriage, helping to develop a website, joining a Bible study, serving the needy) and participate in them before they possess saving faith. In this way, reformission evangelism depends on friendship and hospitality as conduits for the gospel” (Driscoll, Mark. Radical Reformission. Pgs 68-69). There are so many errors in this way of thinking, I find it difficult to know where to begin. He presupposes that unbelievers should be brought into the church as the primary form of evangelism. This of course results in his errant belief that churches must be aesthetically pleasing, have cool sound systems, adapt their singing style, even adapt their “philosophy of ministry” for the people of God (referring to the gathered church, which in Driscoll’s mind includes believers and unbelievers), all in a vain effort to create a more comfortable environment for the unbeliever.
You stated: “His sermons would certainly seem to indicate that he is teaching believers from scripture, not watering down the truth for the unregenerate.”
Okaaay... but doesn’t changing the function of the church affect the doctrine of the church? For example, his belief that converts to the local church create converts to Jesus Christ, has HUGE effects on the doctrine of his church. Notice though, Jeff, that I did not say that Mark Driscoll waters down the truth. (It appears that you might have misunderstood this statement from my entry: “But we will not dumb down our messages for them.” By this I meant that most of every sermon is spoken to the believing congregation, even though elders should not assume that everyone in their congregation is born from above. But they speak to people who know their Bibles).
You stated: “All that said it does seem clear from scripture that the primary role of the church is to believers. Let it be understood, however, that the church is a body of believers, and as such it does have a role in reaching out to the lost.”
I am in 100% agreement with you here. Amen, preach it brotha! But because of the nature of our discussion, I feel as though I must qualify my agreement. You won’t hear any argument from me that the role of the gathered church is for believers. I also believe the church has as its role to preach the gospel to unsaved people. Where I disagree with Mark Driscoll (and other Emerging Church leaders) is how to go about evangelizing the nations. I do not believe it is Biblical to disciple unbelievers before they come to know Christ. I do not believe that to get these unbelievers to my church I must change the paint on the inside of my church building (something he suggests), or updating the style of singing, or changing the liturgy of my service so the unbeliever can have the best experience possible. The local churches across the globe, and the Church as the body of Christ, should go out into the world and preach the gospel whenever the Lord provides opportunities. We rejoice at my church when unbelievers visit our fellowship. But we do not change our liturgy for them. We do not try to attract unbelievers to the style of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. We believe that the gospel saves sinners, not the style. When I reached the end of Driscoll’s work, I could not help but thinking that he misses the true hindrance for unbelievers to repent: their hatred for God’s truth. We don’t need to change our church services as if we were Arminians making some special appeal to their libertarian free will. We need to faithfully and clearly communicate the gospel to them, trusting God to redeem His elect people.
You stated: “Further still, it seems that the main driving point of Mark’s book is that we should be engaging the culture, and that as a people living in a world of unbelievers we should be aware of and to a degree in tune with what is going on in the lives of those around us. It seems to follow that, being a body of people, the church will reflect its members, and that a body in tune with the culture will reflect that culture.”
Christians need to understand a person’s worldview. We don’t need to engage the culture, we need to engage people living in that culture. Next, you seem to touch on a point that I also agree with you on – the liturgy of the local church is comprised of the preferences of the believers in that congregation. Where Mark Driscoll departs from this is his belief that we must conform our styles to society’s preferences, and not to the believers’ preferences at that local church. Big difference. But again, the reason Driscoll argues this way is so that the local church will not be a hindrance to unbelievers who want to date the church.
You stated: “And by building a culture in the church that rejects the culture of the world as fully sinful we isolate ourselves from unbelievers and build unbiblical walls between us and the world, which hinders the spread of the gospel.”
I rarely meet Christians who reject the “culture of the world” as “fully sinful.” Reformed Christians even less so! I’d love to meet these Christians who take part in no aspect of American culture whatsoever. I know Christians who have strong convictions about not going to the movies, like my pastor and his wife. Is this legalism? I think not. Because if you knew my pastor, you’d know that he doesn’t believe watching movies is sinful, he just chooses not to watch them. Does this hinder my pastor’s ability to make the gospel “relevant” to the unregenerate? Of course not. Because Pastor Fry can’t use an example from the Matrix and apply that to the gospel in no way hinders his spiritual gift for teaching and preaching God’s truth to believers and sinners. One more thing – there is only one wall standing between the unbeliever and God: their sinfulness. The appearance and liturgy of a local church makes not the slightest difference in the salvation of sinners.
I hope this was beneficial to you McPhat.
In the Saving Faith,
Casey
Here's my favorite part of the meta to this blog entry.
Jeff stated: “And by building a culture in the church that rejects the culture of the world as fully sinful we isolate ourselves from unbelievers and build unbiblical walls between us and the world, which hinders the spread of the gospel.”
Rusty replied:I rarely meet Christians who reject the “culture of the world” as “fully sinful.” Reformed Christians even less so! I’d love to meet these Christians who take part in no aspect of American culture whatsoever. I know Christians who have strong convictions about not going to the movies, like my pastor and his wife. Is this legalism? I think not. Because if you knew my pastor, you’d know that he doesn’t believe watching movies is sinful, he just chooses not to watch them. Does this hinder my pastor’s ability to make the gospel “relevant” to the unregenerate? Of course not. Because Pastor Fry can’t use an example from the Matrix and apply that to the gospel in no way hinders his spiritual gift for teaching and preaching God’s truth to believers and sinners. One more thing – there is only one wall standing between the unbeliever and God: their sinfulness. The appearance and liturgy of a local church makes not the slightest difference in the salvation of sinners.
Somehow I think at this point you both turned out incorrect. :-) For Rusty, I think you have accidentally overstated your case, especially in the last sentence. Surely we are called to be in the world but not of the world, yes? We are to be like aliens and sojourners, but we are to actually make the trip, aren't we? In that, the local body is (ought to be) a stark testimony to this sinful and dying world for the sake of the Gospel -- not just some institution but the active body of Christ, the feet of which are beautiful for carrying the Gospel of Peace to the lost. And that's not about watching movies or not, Rusty (as I am certain you would agree): it is about living a holy life not by our own power but by the power of the resurrection in Jesus Christ.
As I pointed out in this blog post, the anonymous writer of the Epistle of Diogentus indicates that the Christians of his day held to certain doctrinal assertions, and those where borne out in their life as a community -- that is, as a church. And those were the people getting tossed to the lions in the great persecutions! Did their works save them? No, of course not -- and they didn't "save" anybody else, either, except to preach the Gospel to the lost. As Paul says must be done in Romans, how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
The church is certainly doing the preaching -- but not just in "service time" on the Lord's day, to be sure.
Which brings me to Jeff's statement. It is important to note that when Jeff says, "we isolate ourselves from unbelievers and build unbiblical walls", he has mischaracterized Rusty is a pretty big way. But I also challenge Jeff with the same assertions I provided to Rusty from Scripture: Surely we are called to be in the world but not of the world, yes? We are to be like aliens and sojourners, but we are to actually make the trip, aren't we? In that, the local body is (ought to be) a stark testimony to this sinful and dying world for the sake of the Gospel -- not just some institution but the active body of Christ, the feet of which are beautiful for carrying the Gospel of Peace to the lost.
I think that I have never read any statement which so completely overlooks the fact of the first 2 centuries of Christian cultural expansion than Jeff's -- and I have read some doozers from Catholics and atheists. The question is "what makes us relevant to the world?" Is it the kind of music we play? Gosh, if that's all it actually takes to spread the Gospel, Paul sure blew it -- yet we know Paul didn't blow it but blew the lid off the culture he evangelized. Christianity encroached onto the Roman empire quickly in spite of persecution, and overturned godless (in spite of many gods) and immoral (in spite of highly-developed ethical philosophies) institutions with this man Paul preached about who died on a cross but walked out of the tomb in triumph.
Listen: having the Bible in English is a "relevant" function of the church. It is certainly relevant to have hymns and spiritual songs in a genre that can be understood by both the believer and the unbeliever -- in order to preach the Gospel to both. But I reject that all genres of music are appropriate for worship, and I reject that any attempt to render God's word in a "vernacular" or "vulgar" tongue is acceptable.
Now why draw that line -- to be divisive? Well, in a word, yes. To divide between what I was as a lost man and what I am and will be in Christ. There is a substantial difference between someone who has received the Gospel and has been changed by it and someone who has not experienced the power of the Gospel to save -- and it is part of the duty (yes, duty) of the Christian to live worthy of the calling he has received.
Jeff: the church setting itself apart for the sake of the Gospel, and living in a way which rejects the sinfulness of the world, is not building an "unbiblical wall". It is the common call to the church. If you disagree, let's look at Revelation 2 & 3 together and find out what the church ought to be.
Cent: I obviously stand by even the last sentence. I thought that through. If you are trying to make "the appearance of the local church has no affect on the salvation of sinners" to mean that we are not to be in the world preaching the gospel, I'd question if you understood anything in our discussion.
Furthermore cent, you really should read the book before trying to correct either myself or Jeff. You misunderstood both of us. Until you understand the language Mark Driscoll uses you won't have a clue as to why we are using the terms like "relevant" or "emerging culture" etc.
Thanks.
Dear Casey,
This is actually a book that I have been meaning to read as I’ve heard some amazing things about it. I have not heard that it is perfect theology or that it is the precise approach that Christians need to have as they consider all ecclesiological facets; however, I have heard that it will encourage me to be a bold witness for my faith . . . I guess I can be simple-minded sometimes, but for me, that is the main purpose of my life . . . living and sharing the gospel. Thank you for making me aware of some of the possible shortcomings in this book so that I may more discerningly glean Driscoll’s passion for making the gospel known in a relevant manner. This whole entry actually reminds me of your blog entry on January 11th “Encouraged by Arminians.” In this entry I was very encouraged that though you didn’t agree with everything for the song “Here I go Again,” you were able to discern what was error and what was truth and were then able to be encouraged by the truth. For me, I look forward to being encouraged by a passionate brother in Christ that has a heart for declaring the gospel. There is probably a lot of other conversations to go into about theology and other implications that are in this book, but I simply hope to be encouraged to live a life that is more passionate about the gospel . . . thanks again for letting me know what areas to possibly be discerning in so that I can learn from this brother in Christ. In relationship to the gospel, here is a quote that I’ve been dwelling on this last week:
“If there’s anything in life that we should be passionate about, it’s the gospel. And I don’t mean passionate only about sharing it with others. I mean passionate in thinking about it, dwelling on it, rejoicing in it, allowing it to color the way we look at the world. Only one thing can be of first importance to each of us. And only the gospel ought to be (The Cross Centered Life by C.J. Mahaney pgs 20-21).”
God bless you brother,
Your friend Brent Klontz
Wow, those are the longest comments that I have ever read. Case, you should have a forum on your site to help with discussions like this.
I will have Driscoll's book next Wednesday, and I will be back after that either with an apology or more comments.
Jeff,
You stated: “I'll let the arguments on the "Emerging Church" symantics end. I really feel like I'm speaking past you, which is probably my fault for writing late and trying to avoid symantics in what became a highly symantic argument.”
I believe I recognize the problem we are having in this discussion. You believe that the Emerging Church Movement is sub-Biblical (which I agree with). But you also really enjoy Mark Driscoll. Therefore you refuse to associate Driscoll with the Emerging Church. Is the reason you cannot accept Driscoll’s philosophy of ministry, which lines up perfectly with that of the Emerging Church Movement, because you do not want him associated with the Emerging Church Movement? It is true that Willow Creek and Saddleback, both leading churches in the Emerging Church Movement, possess more liberal theology than Mars Hill Church. However, this doesn’t change the fact that what all three of these churches have in common are the same beliefs about the nature, purpose and functions of the local church – Emerging Church ideals (I wonder if my readers are getting bored with the repetition with which I write, because I have stated this point over and over and over again). In my previous response to you, I wrote: “I’ve found it curious that neither you nor Ryan has attempted to interact with Driscoll’s own statements - that he not only was a key founder in the Emerging Church Movement, but also an active participant in this movement today. In my response to Ryan, I documented Driscoll’s thoughts about the Emerging Church Movement. More than that, I documented how he views his involvement today. Driscoll does more than claim to be a part of this movement. His views of the local church and application of “Reformission evangelism” is Emerging Church ideals. Therefore Driscoll can safely be labeled part of the Emerging Church Movement for two reasons: (1) His own testimony to that fact; (2) His view of the local church and of evangelism/missions is classified as Emerging Church.” I am tempted to continue, but what else can be said that I haven’t already made clear?
You stated: “I apologize if my post came across as being entirely about worship music style, because that's not the point. The point is that, *for example*, singing only hymns is not *required* Biblically, and that if that's your style in a church in a community of younger, modern pagans then you have to admit that you have created a place that is not going to be very comfortable for an unbeliever.”
What you seem to have missed is that it is Driscoll’s contention that the worship style must change (and the paint job, and the sound system, and the liturgy of the church). And for whom does he believe it must change? For the believers in that church? No, but for unbelievers. Why does he contend it must change? So the believers can enjoy their desired preferences? No, but so unbelievers can feel comfortable enough to date the church. Because you did not respond to it, I will again cite a section from Driscoll’s book that I had in my previous comment: “In reformission evangelism, people are called to come and see the transformed lives of God’s people before they are called to repent of sin and to trust in God. Taking a cue from dating is helpful on this point. If we desire people to be happily married to Jesus as his loving bride, it makes sense to let them go out on a few dates with him instead of just putting a shotgun to their heads and asking them to hurry up, put on a white dress, and try to look happy for the photos. Reformission evangelism understands that the transformed lives of people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel. Therefore, it welcomes non-Christians into the church, not so much through evangelistic programs as through informal relationships like Jesus developed with his first disciples. In our church in Seattle, as lost people become friends with Christians, they often get connected to various ministries (for example, helping to run concerts, helping to guide a rock-climbing expedition, taking a class on biblical marriage, helping to develop a website, joining a Bible study, serving the needy) and participate in them before they possess saving faith. In this way, reformission evangelism depends on friendship and hospitality as conduits for the gospel” (Driscoll, Mark. Radical Reformission. Pgs 68-69). I will be repeating myself once more, but Driscoll’s approach to evangelism is backwards. One does not first convert to the church, then to Christ. One does not first become part of the visible church, then a disciple of Christ. I am completely against unbelievers dating the church. Do I need to point out that Driscoll’s view here regarding evangelism and the purpose of the local church is Emerging Church?
You stated: “Now that leads you right back to Casey's point which is that, duh, a pagan isn't going to feel comfortable in God's church and that it isn't the music that's going to save him anyway, it's the gospel, and if he's not offended by the gospel then you aren't preaching it. (Casey I apologize if I'm mischaracterized you. Please indicate if I have done so.)”
In your former comment, you wrote: “All that is to say that while he was certainly part of the movement, and to some degree still considers himself to be part of it, it’s not fair to place all the attributes of the entire emerging church beneath his name, nor to presume that he endorses the theological liberalism that is spreading through it.” In response, I had asked you: “Can you show me where I “place[d] all the attributes of the entire emerging church beneath his name”? Or where I presumed “that he endorses the theological liberalism that is spreading through [“mainline” Emerging Churches]”? You will find that I did not say anything remotely resembling such remarks. What I have been very clear about is the fact that Mark Driscoll says that he’s Emerging Church, and has Emerging Church views of the church and evangelism.”
You stated: “Mark's point, and the point I agree with, is that the church plays a large role in preaching the gospel. And as such it should try to make itself as comfortable to a visitor as possible, *without* sacrificing truth.”
Christ’s Church has as her role to preach the gospel. Mark Driscoll believes that evangelism primarily takes place during the gatherings of the local assembly – this is where I depart from his Emerging Church views. I do not believe that evangelism primarily takes place during the gatherings of the local church. Rather, evangelism primarily takes place outside the local church. Driscoll believes we ought to invite unbelievers to date the church. The bible teaches that we are to convert men by the preaching of His Word, and then invite them to be members in our churches.
You stated: “Mark's point is that being comfortable in the church can lead to another and another opportunity to hear the truth preached and to coming back and running into other believers and seeing what their lives are like.”
This would make sense if I accepted the presupposition that our local churches ought to create a comfortable environment for unbelievers so that they can date the church. I do not presuppose this. The local church is for Christians, not unbelievers.
You stated: “Casey my question for you is, while you hold on to your church culture becuase you say it isn't necessary to change it to make pagans comfortable, can you argue that it is *wrong* to change it to make pagans more comfortable, presuming that your truth is not watered down? Thus I am obviously speaking of aethetics.”
Yes, I can make that argument. Because unlike you, I do not presuppose that the local church is for both believers and unbelievers. Our local churches are meant for the gathering of the saints, not the gathering of unbelievers. And again, the reason I would change the “culture” or the preferences at my local church is because of the preferences of the believers at my church, not for the unbelievers in an ever “emerging” culture. … This has been my point all along =)
Justified by grace through faith alone,
Rusty
Casey,
I think you make a great point in defining what the "Emerging Church" essentially is. "Belong before you believe." The unbeliever is to 'Belong' to the church before they 'believe.' D.A. Carson supports this understanding of the "emerging chruch" in his book, Becoming Conversant with Emergent. He says, "A certain union encourages its member churches to reverse the priorities: first “belonging,” then “believing.” This parallels the priorities of the emerging church movement."
I think if i could emphasis one point it would be an "emerging church" doesn't automatically have bad liberal doctrine. If we see how the rest of Mark's book is influenced by his view of "Belong before you Believe," we can discern correctly the right from the wrong. For example, Driscoll believes we need to challenge our traditions that may stop us from reaching out to a specific people group, or even challenge our views of freedom in Christ over issues of alcohol. I can then discern this view comes from the bible where he gives wonderful support. But another example, Driscoll believes we need to be up-to-date on all of our technology and have the latest worship styles. I can discern that this view comes from his "Belong before you Believe" philosophy, not from clear biblical teaching. Thus, I don’t believe it’s wrong to classify Driscoll as "Emerging Church" As a result, i need to be careful to discern from his work what sections are influenced from that philosophy of ministry and what sections are supported biblically.
Now i believe the book may be potentially dangerous to undiscerning folks. As he begins the book, he gets you all fired up for personal evangelism, from a Calvinistic perspective i might add. I love many of his challenges to cross over and leave your fear of man in the dust as you reach out unreservedly to the lost, whoever they may be. But then with that context, we see Driscoll misapply his statements of us sacrificially crossing over into non-believing culture to sacrificially incorporating a part of that culture into our churches for the sake of the non-believer. I believe this is inconsistent and irrelevant to personal evangelism. The church is the Household of God, a gathering of Believers for the sake of fellowship, encouragement and worship( whom only the believing are capable of doing), not the gathering of non-believers for the sake of evangelism.
So when it is all said and done, i don't think we should start with an evaluation of whether aesthetics "can" serve or not in evangelism, but rather why are we talking about aesthetics.
Thanks Casey for spending so much time dealing with such a ‘relevant’ topic to our church in our ‘emerging’ culture. Soli Deo Gloria
Your Brother,
Adam
Adam,
You are so right. Thanks for your post d00d =).
The only thing I want to clarify is this: "...an "emerging church" doesn't automatically have bad liberal doctrine."
I would simply add to that, that Emerging Churches don't automatically have other bad liberal theology (other than their liberal Emerging Church views).
Post a Comment
<< Home