"Belong to the church, then believe in Jesus"

The entry’s subtitle that would be too long had I included it in the title: “Dating the Church”

Those of us who have kept a close eye on the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement (ECM) over the past few years have been fascinated by its rise to stardom, and now its popularity sort of plateauing out – meaning that most of those who are susceptible to the liberal post-modernism of the ECM have already embraced it. One of the founders of the ECM, Mark Driscoll, has always created an unusual amount of buzz (I think he prefers it that way =)). Driscoll was arguably the unofficial leader of the movement, until about 18 months ago when he offered criticism of some Emergent leaders. A great deal of new buzz is floating around the blogosphere about Driscoll (check out Phil Johnson’s blogspotting over recent months). It seems that people (particularly Continuationist/Charistmatic Calvinists) tend to be much more charitable towards Driscoll’s Emergent-ness because he is a Calvinist.

There is a great misunderstanding among folks that goes something like this: “Mark Driscoll isn’t really Emergent anymore. I mean, he cares about doctrine. What’s more, he’s a Calvinist!”

The logic used to reach this conclusion is as follows: (1) The Emergent/Emerging Church Movement is “bad.” (2) Mark Driscoll is not “bad” because he believes in doctrine. (3) Therefore Mark Driscoll is not part of the ECM.

The error with this line of logic, as well as the conclusion it reaches, is that whether one teaches doctrine or not does not define you as Emergent/Emerging. What defines one as Emergent is your view of the local church and evangelism. Mark Driscoll succinctly describes these views from his popular book Radical Reformission:

“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).

See? Compared to other Emergent books out there this is EXTREMELY straightforward and well written.

“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.”

People are called to see the transformed lives of the saints before they are called to repent of sin and believe? I agree with this in part. I believe that often-times the elect do have the opportunity to get to know Christians before justification – but this is not always the case. As we see later, Driscoll informs us that he means to have unbelievers become actively involved in his church before they know Christ. This is a fundamental difference between the Biblical model where professing believers making up the church, and the Emergent model.

“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.”

Is it true “that the transformed lives of the people in the church are both the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel”? No, I do not believe this is true. The evidence of God’s sanctifying work in the lives of His people is not an argument to prove the truthfulness of the gospel. It is an evidence of the gospel not an argument for it.

Next, it is apparent that by “argument” Driscoll means this is an argument we should offer to the unregenerate. An Emergent might say to an unbeliever, “See how our lives are changed? That’s why the gospel is true, and that’s why you should believe in the gospel…” This is an ineffective appeal and is not preaching the gospel.

Notice the direct application Driscoll then makes: “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.” Non-Christians can come to church. They are welcome to visit our church. But they cannot and should not be publicly identified by that church as part of the assembly. I think it goes without saying that when an unbeliever walks through your church doors you should go out of your way to preach the gospel to him – using words and pointing them to the Scriptures. But we should not treat him as though he was a believer by letting him serve the church and being part of various ministries (which Driscoll says sentences later).

The problem I have with Driscoll comparing “Reformission Evangelism” with Christ and His 12 disciples is that Christ was not proselytizing them. In fact, Christ sent them out to proselytize.

Obviously then, I don’t believe unbelievers ought to date Christ or His church. Frankly, his analogy disgusts me. “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.” I’m honestly not sure if Mark is somehow saying that non-Emergent churches force people to “hurry up” and try to be happy members in their churches. Finally, individuals are not said to be married to Christ. The Church is said to be the bride of Christ.

“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.”

Again, the unregenerate have no business serving in Christ’s church. Are you noticing the fundamental mark of Mark Driscoll’s view of the local church? It is that the gatherings of the local church are meant for both believers and unbelievers. But Biblically speaking, a person must have a valid profession of faith, been baptized, and submit to elders at a church before becoming part of a church.

I’d like to say once more that I recognize that believers should be good witnesses to unbelievers. This includes our conduct and behavior outside of church meetings. We should interact with the unregenerate when we have the opportunity. But fundamentally, I believe evangelism primarily takes place outside of the meetings of the local assembly. Mark Driscoll believes it takes place primarily during the church’s meetings.

“It’s all comin together” – Cronk

“In this way, reformission evangelism depends on friendship and hospitality as conduits for the gospel.”

Let’s say I was preaching the gospel to an unregenerate co-worker (off the clock – because I don’t get paid to waste time preaching =)). Let’s also say I have been a jerk to this person every chance I’ve had. Do you think this co-worker would give me much time to explain what I believe? Proooobably not. So then, my actions are very important. I should be a good friend to my unbelieving co-workers. I should be hospitable to my unbelieving co-workers. Yes, I do recognize that even though we sin in front of unbelievers, we ought to do our best to have good reputations so that our lifestyle does not contradict the message we proclaim.

But for the umpteenth time, where Mark Driscoll goes wrong is his view that all this takes place primarily in the gatherings of the local church.

Shazaam! We’re making progress.

Now that I have spent much of this entry criticizing Mark Driscoll and his Emerging/Emergent views, I would like to add that I am so very glad for the positive things Mark Driscoll does. I am glad he is a Calvinist. I am glad he does emphasize doctrine. I am glad he is against post-modernism (as a philosophical system). I am thankful he is a professing believer and has good intentions towards our unbelieving world. We do not need to throw out everything he says because he is Emergent … just throw out his Emergent-ness =)

Happy almost Friday.

Case of Base