Compromise Compromise Compromise
Steve Camp has amazed me over the past year with his ability to succinctly and clearly point out the errors within the Emergent/Emerging Church Movement (ECM). Today, Campi wrote the following:
“Current evangelicalism is obsessed with the latest of benign buzz words - contextualization. It is a central theme to Bible conferences; it is the focus of books, blogs, pulpits and preachers.
This word can be summed up in the following phrase: "we don't want to be seeker sensitive, but seeker sensible; we don't want to argue for relativism, but relevantism." This appears to be nothing more than mere double-talk beloved: sensible for sensitive - relevantism for relativism. In reality, it is exactly the same thing just clothed in different rags. And here is why: the "contemporary emerging missional model" still treats the audience as sovereign forgetting that it is the message that is sovereign." (http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/10/spurgeons-burden-wasnt-to.html).
This is one of two core deficiencies that make up the Emergent/Emerging philosophy of ministry. Emergents spend a cyclopean amount of time adapting their message to catch up to an ever-changing culture so as to be more relevant. Unfortunately, what gets lost in the way is the gospel.
I mean … think for a second: if our primary concern is to make our proclamation “fun” and “cool” for the world’s culture, how can you not compromise the gospel? I have been massively disappointed with the ECM from the very beginning (as some long-time readers of this blog can testify) because they say one thing but mean and do another.
What's funny to me is that years after I became aware of this movement, I still stand by my initial gut instincts of where Emergents were headed. I wish I couldn't say "I told ya so." The EMC is basically nothing more than a repackaged version of the Seeker-Sensitive Movement with a post-modern twist to it.
(By the way, does it bother anyone else that Emergents focus on reaching the culture and not individuals?)
Emergents have forgotten that the power of God is in the gospel, and not in any fancy presentation. God saves. Man does not save. God was pleased to save sinners through the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21).
Finally, I just have to say this: Paul was not Emergent. Christ our Lord is not Emergent. None of the prophets of old were Emergent.
Why write about this? Because like it or not, the ECM has affected American Evangelicalism over the past few years ... and for the worse. It is likely that someone you know is either personally influenced by the ECM, or you know someone who knows someone who's been influenced. For some odd reason I know lots of Emergents - might the Lord be liberal in granting me love and patience =). We might as well be on our toes. We should have a ready response to their regurgitated views of how ministry ought to be done. Our response should bring them to the Scriptures. Personally, I'll take them through 1 Corinthians 1-2.
Be encouraged that long after the ECM has come and gone, the gospel will still go forth. Christ will still be victorious. And we, as the people of God, must continue to faithfully proclaim the oldtime message of Jesus Christ.
Thanks Campi. I’m always encouraged with your entries.
Rustoleum
posted by rustypth @ 7:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Christ is our model. He grew up in the culture (emerged) and had favor. His speech was a local dialect and he took on parts of the culture. How can you say Jesus did not emerge?
Did he drop out of heaven?
Andrew - I did not say that Jesus "did not emerge" - whatever you mean by that.
Here is what I said: "Finally, I just have to say this: Paul was not Emergent. Christ our Lord is not Emergent. None of the prophets of old were Emergent."
Case,
Thanks for the blogspot on Mr. Camp. Its good to see others out there that still care about the integrity of the gospel.
If the ECM was just vernacular or an "emergence" into culture. We'd all be emergent. I go to Starbucks, I say words like "Dude" or "rad," I wear t-shirts and jeans.
Also, Andrew, I think the word you are looking for when you say "He grew up in the culture (emerged) and had favor." is actually immersed.
Immerse : To engage wholly or deeply.
Emerge : to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity
Definitions from dictionary.com
With that in mind, shouldn't it be called the Immerging Church Movement? Because they are "engaging wholly and deeply?" If they were emerging, they would be coming out of the culture.
Or maybe its that they are Emerging from the church and orthodoxy.
Hmmm...
Hey Hannah, thanks for your comments about Driscoll. You are absolutely correct that Driscoll has renounced some of what the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement has done and proclaimed. However, Mark still holds to the core beliefs that makes one part of the movement. He still believes that the gathered church should also include unbelievers (and no, he is not referring to a "visible/invisible" church distinction here). Driscoll also believes that our message should be culturally relevant so as to attract unbelievers to our churches. How this practically is accomplished is quite honestly, disappointing. He argues that evangelism ought to be done primarily during the gathered worship services of the local church. Practically applying Emergent ideas, he ends up adapting the church services to cater to the unregenerate – music style, dress style, building style and appearance, even the tile in the bathrooms … and any other aspect of the world’s culture that he can incorporate into the church to make unbelievers more comfortable.
But, as you've pointed out, Mark has some good theology on his shoulders. He is a Calvinist. Unfortunately, Mark is also a charismatic (and therefore denies Sola Scriptura) which is why I believe he was drawn to the Emerging Church Movement to begin with - charismaticism coupled with the natural denial of Sola Scriptura. But just because Mark has some sound theology ... some really sound theology, does not exclude one from the Emerging Church Movement.
I would encourage you to read one of the best resources out there on the ECM, written by Phil Johnson (an elder at John MacArthur's church): http://emergentno.blogspot.com/2006/03/phil-johnson-critical-look-at-emerging.html
Phil Johnson is possibly the most qualified person to write on the ECM and does so excellently. I look forward to hearing from you.
In Christ, your brother in the faith,
Casey
P.S. – for more of Driscoll’s Emergent/Emerging views, I suggest reading Radical Reformission
I don't have much to add to what has already been well said by Hannah and JJ. But I, too, am currently listening to Desiring God conference - it's quite good! And I give it my full recommendation.
"Be encouraged that long after the ECM has come and gone, the gospel will still go forth. Christ will still be victorious. And we, as the people of God, must continue to faithfully proclaim the oldtime message of Jesus Christ."
I couldn't "homologia" more! The ECM is precisely that: a movement. It will flicker and fail soon enough and be lost in the darkness of cultural compromise...
hey,
Assuming that being charismatic is a denial of sola scriptura is an interesting leap of illogic. Why would you make such a sweeping statement.
Many charismatic Calvinists that I know would be very upset at being misrepresented on their view of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Robbymac,
You said, "Assuming that being charismatic is a denial of sola scriptura is an interesting leap of illogic. Why would you make such a sweeping statement."
Sola Scriptura presupposes that no new Special Revelation is given today - including prophecy, tongues, and divine impressions etc. I would recommend David King and William Webster's "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" and James White's "Scripture Alone" for more info.
Thx,
Casey
Hello Strongbow,
You asked, “Rusty - My brother, there's a huge problem with the logic you're applying here. By what means do we separate the "sacred" from the "secular"?”
Could you expand on your question? Sacred? Secular?
You asked, “You're telling me that there are "biblical" and "worldly" bathroom tiles??”
You missed my point entirely. Mark Driscoll, in his book “Radical Reformission” uses as an example that churches should change the tile in the bathroom so as to not offend unbelievers. I am not the one suggesting that we change bathroom tiles at all. Whatever kind of bathroom tiles you have, go for it. And no, I do not believe there are “Biblical” or “worldly” bathroom tiles =).
You said, “That statement makes zero sense. I thought God cared more about the inner man than the outward appearance.”
I agree that God cares more about the heart than the outward appearance. The fact of the matter is, I am okay with any stylistic preference so long as it does not detract from true worship, and is based on the decision of the elders at that local church.
You said in your next comment, “Since when is being a non-cessationalist "charismatic" denying Sola Scriptura? I'd think it would actually be showing the opposite: if Mark believes that things like tongues and miracles haven't ceased, isn't that a biblical position??”
I’ve already addressed this issue two comments above this one =). Here is what I had to say: “Sola Scriptura presupposes that no new Special Revelation is given today - including prophecy, tongues, and divine impressions etc. I would recommend David King and William Webster's "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" and James White's "Scripture Alone" for more info.”
Casey
Post a Comment
<< Home