Response to Isaac
The following is a response to Isaac's comment on the previous entry.
Hello Isaac,
You said, “I agree that pursuing holiness is far more important than pursuing relevance, but does one have to come at the expense of the other?”
No, one does not have to pursue holiness at the expense of being relevant. In fact, I believe that one becomes more relevant to the world as one increases in holiness. The problem John MacArthur and I have is not that we believe the Emergent Church Movement (ECM) over-emphasizes being relevant, but rather in how Emergents define “relevant.” The ECM proposes that the church adapt to the ever-emerging culture by incorporating the world’s culture so as to attract the unregenerate. In so doing, they argue that only then can the Church be truly relevant to the unbelieving world. I firmly disagree. I believe that the stylistic preferences of each local church should be decided by the elders of that church for the purpose of benefiting the Christians who attend.
For example, if Local Church A decides to sing hymns, that would be perfectly fine. Let’s say that Local Church B church decides to sing more contemporary styles with songs that strongly reinforce Biblical teaching. Again, perfectly fine. Neither of these churches is more likely than the other to attract unbelievers to the point of true conversion. The Holy Spirit doesn’t only save sinners who sing along with contemporary-style songs. But the ECM would have us believe that Local Church B is more likely to convert the unregenerate, and even they are not as “cool” as they should be. It’s almost as if the ECM forgets that God is sovereign over salvation by acting as though certain stylistic preferences might help convert a dead sinner.
So what does Biblical relevance look like? How does one effectively reach our sinful world? The Apostle Paul answers this for us in 1 Corinthians 1:21, “21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”
God is not pleased to save sinners through the world’s wisdom. God saves sinners through the foolishness of the message preached. O how foolish preaching seems to those who are perishing, but to God’s elect it is an amazing thing. Therefore, if a believer in Jesus Christ desires to truly be relevant to our dying world, he needs to uncompromisingly proclaim the gospel. There is no need to doctor it up with flashy styles, or with lame attempts to look cool. God saves, and He saves perfectly. All we must do is faithfully proclaim the gospel, or as Paul said, “1And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
You said, “I've seen several examples of churches this year that take both righteousness and relevance very seriously, Rock Harbor in Costa Mesa, and Ecclesia in Los Angeles, to be specific.”
I cannot comment on either of these churches because I’ve never heard of them =).
You continued, “Both of these churches take the truth of the Bible and doctrine very seriously, while also being engaged in modern culture and having a reasonable understanding of the world outside of the church walls.”
What did you mean by: “…being engaged in modern culture and having a reasonable understanding of the world outside of the church walls” ? If you mean that you adapt the stylistic preferences of the local church to match the styles of worldly culture, I obviously disagree. Also, one can be well aware of the world’s culture without becoming a part of the sinful aspects of that culture. But the goal of the Christian is not to become an expert on worldly culture. His goal, with regards to evangelism, should be to clearly preach the gospel to those who are a part of worldly culture.
You said, “I agree that being 'cool' is a silly goal for the church. I cringe whenever I hear about the "awesome rock concert style services" or "multi-media presentations" at churches.”
Good to hear =). However, I believe the reason Mark Driscoll and other Emergent Church leaders are concerned with being “cool” in the eyes of the world, is a result of the Emergent philosophy that the local church needs to adopt worldly culture.
You continued, “It's not that the inclusion of these particular devices automatically means that truth is being compromised…”
Very true, except if you count the belief (incorporating the world’s culture) that led them to this behavior as a compromise.
You continued, “…but very often they accomplish the opposite of their intended goal and come off as embarrassingly out of touch and straight-up dorky.”
I completely agree with the first part of this statement: “but very often they accomplish the opposite of their intended goal.” In many Emergent Churches, they genuinely desire to see the lost come to know Christ, and that is wonderful. But my pastor has a saying: “What you win folks with is what you win folks to.” In other words, if you use post-modernism and worldliness, you’ve won them to post-modernism and worldliness.
About your second point: “and come off as embarrassingly out of touch and straight-up dorky.” This may be true, but honestly, who cares what the world thinks of you? If they think you’re a dork, so be it. The questions I would ask are: how was the preaching during church? Or: did you clearly preach the gospel to so-and-so?
You said, “It’s ridiculous for the church to try and dress up like modern culture,…”
This is exactly what the ECM movement does, including Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church.
You continued, “…but I think it's important to make an effort to understand the culture and be an active participant in it.”
I disagree. We do not need to participate in worldly culture. We need to preach to those who are involved in worldly culture. This is a monumental difference.
You said, “The point here is to keep the message of the Gospel from automatically being dismissed by a segment of Thai people that value a particular style of grooming.”
This scenario is a matter of preference really. If you want to grow a beard, I think that is acceptable. But let me use another example. Let’s say that there is an African tribe that prefers that you have ear-lobe extensions 3-feet long. Should a missionary do this so he can preach the gospel to these people? I think that would be a bit over the top. My point is that there are boundaries to our interaction with others. One of these boundaries is allowing the elders of a local church to decide which stylistic preferences their church should use that would benefit the believers of that congregation. Another boundary is not engaging in aspects of culture that are sinful. I don’t need to see every R-Rated or PG-13 movie so I can preach the gospel (not that every R-Rated or PG-13 movie is sinful, though some are). I don’t need to know who the coolest bands are. I don’t need to go clubbing so I can be relevant to partying college students. We already have so much in common: we are all born sinners. That puts us on an even playing field. Yes, definitely have an idea of the worldview people have, then present to them the Christian worldview.
You said, “Missionary groups are also quick to warn against forcing newly established churches in foreign countries to automatically engage in western-style worship music.”
We definitely agree here. So long as the songs reinforce Biblical doctrine, styles don’t matter.
You said, “My hope is that emerging churches that have gone overboard with a reactionary response can meet halfway with traditional churches that no longer live on the same planet as the people they’re trying to communicate with.”
My hope is that the ECM repents of incorporating Post-modernism and worldliness into the Church.
You ended by asking, “Can we make it a goal to be righteous and relevant at the same time?”
Christians who are righteous are relevant to the sinful world around them. As stated above, one does not become relevant by adapting to the world’s culture. Be the most relevant by appearing foolish to the world through preaching the message of Christ.
Thanks,
Casey
posted by rustypth @ 7:00 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Casey,
I can't say that I'm an expert when it comes to the emergent church movement, and I don't mean to stand up for Mark Driscoll (who I've honestly never heard before), or the emergent church movement as a whole. I would agree that sacrificing Biblical principles is never acceptable in any church, and that worrying about being "cool" to the world is a pretty worthless thing for the church to get too caught up in. Churches that spend energy and resources on being “cool” are wasting their time, and like I said before, failing miserably anyway. I’d have to agree with most of your responses in regards to evangelism. The best way to reach non-Christians with the Gospel is to preach the truth in a manner that’s well communicated and not watered-down. Period. I think I understand your position on church outreach, but my point had to do more with the way the church ministers to its own believers (although I did touch on some outreach issues, particularly when giving the example of the Thai/grooming scenario. In that case, I think the missionaries in question are going to acceptable lengths to minister to the Thai people. Likewise, I think churches need to go to acceptable lengths to engage American non-Christians, although once again, not in ways that are too extreme or unbiblical- I think your example was quite on point here). I think that where we might disagree is the way that the Church approaches its own people, particularly young people. I think the emergent church movement is a response to the way that churches have been operating in America since the 1960’s. The culture has changes drastically, sometime for the better, other times not. But you wouldn't know this if you visited the average American church on a Sunday morning. They might be preaching the Gospel effectively, but those in the church who count themselves as Christians can be rightfully frustrated by how out of touch and inauthentic the Christian culture can seem. To be clear, pastors memorizing all the lyrics to top 40 radio songs won’t solve this problem, nor will it be solved by quoting lines from Borat or shopping at Urban Outfitters. I think the goal needs to be fostering an open and honest environment where Christians don't have to pretend to be anything that they aren't. I can't believe how many times I've heard the same reaction from Christians who’ve read certain books from the last few years by authors who could be described as “emergent.” Without fail they talk about how the book felt so “real” to them. They use words like “authentic”, and “real”, not because the author was cooler than more traditional Christian writers, but because the author wasn’t afraid to be honest and open about real thoughts and ideas that Christians struggle with every day. Now, whether we agree with what the writer was saying or not, he is definitely tapping into certain unspoken things that mature Christians rarely ever feel comfortable discussing in church; doubts, fears, questions, and opinions that are usually off limits. Readers are also excited to see a Christian who isn’t putting on a front. A Christian author with a contemporary sense of humor? Who can be sarcastic and flippant at times? Who can admit that they watch South Park and listen to Notorious B.I.G. without tagging on an elaborate disclaimer? Who can admit that they fail miserably and do things that are foolish and even heretical? Who can share stories of disappointment, frustration, and even anger in their Christian walk? It’s sad that these things seem atypical in the Christian community, because for the most part, that’s what the modern Christian community looks like when it isn’t playing church. Real, flesh and blood folks with real problems, real personalities, and real shortcomings. (I should note here that I’m not talking about YOUR church, but most American churches as a whole). When I read Blue Like Jazz (let’s not get hung up on the particulars of this book – I hope I don’t automatically lose you here), I don’t find myself agreeing with every one of the author’s premises, but I am encouraged with the level of honesty and candor that he can talk about his real Christian walk. No pastor needs to be concerned being relevant to his congregation by being cool, they simply need to be real about the Christian faith, to admit that its messy, it’s hard, and it won’t automatically make your life a walk in the park. I don’t think people can grow effectively in their personal faith until they’re able to be honest with themselves and the other Christians around them. That being said, let’s not sacrifice Biblical truth by getting all mushy and touchy feely about our faith. This isn’t about “finding ourselves” or “self-actualization”; it’s about having a relationship with a very real and very awesome God. Let’s live by his word and stand firm on his truth. Also, this doesn’t mean that we should accept sin because it’s “part of who we are.” That’s a silly cop out, and one that will only frustrate us and hinder our relationship with Christ. I think that one of the reasons that I read your blog so regularly is that I’m intrigued by your thoughts on the modern church. You definitely seem to disagree with many of the methods of the emergent church, and most of the time I’m right there with you. However, I think the emergent church is reacting to a real problem which is occurring inside the walls of churches all over the country that don’t seem to want to understand a large segment of their congregation. I want to think that we’re simply disagreeing on different methods by which new churches are addressing this problem, but is it possible that you don’t think that there’s a problem at all?
Thanks for the uber quick reply Isaac.
You said, “Casey, I can't say that I'm an expert when it comes to the emergent church movement, and I don't mean to stand up for Mark Driscoll (who I've honestly never heard before), or the emergent church movement as a whole.”
Fair enough =)
You then stated, “I would agree that sacrificing Biblical principles is never acceptable in any church, and that worrying about being "cool" to the world is a pretty worthless thing for the church to get too caught up in. Churches that spend energy and resources on being “cool” are wasting their time, and like I said before, failing miserably anyway. I’d have to agree with most of your responses in regards to evangelism. The best way to reach non-Christians with the Gospel is to preach the truth in a manner that’s well communicated and not watered-down. Period.”
Glad to hear it, brother.
You said, “I think I understand your position on church outreach, but my point had to do more with the way the church ministers to its own believers … I think the emergent church movement is a response to the way that churches have been operating in America since the 1960’s.”
I am in complete agreement with you that most of the ECM leaders either started their own churches (like Driscoll) or joined the movement (like Donald Miller) because they were unhappy with their former churches. At least … that’s one reason. But this begs the question: why were they unhappy with their former churches? Honestly, their unhappiness stemmed from very shallow reasoning. They didn’t like the songs. They were pressured not to cuss. They felt out of place if they didn’t dress a certain way. They couldn’t be real with the Christians at church. And the list goes on.
With the exception of the last excuse, none of the others are even valid excuses. If you leave a church because of the music style, or because people dress up too much, or because they don’t use rude language, you demonstrate how underdeveloped and immature your ability to determine the health of a church truly is. Well what about the final excuse, that Emergent leaders felt that they couldn’t be real around Christians at their former churches? It seems to me that the reason they felt uncomfortable is because they had glaring sin in their lives that they were flaunting before their brothers and sisters in Christ and did not want to be corrected. So they left. They gave up on their local churches and started their own.
You continued, “The culture has changed drastically, sometimes for the better, other times not. But you wouldn't know this if you visited the average American church on a Sunday morning.”
You assume that the culture at a given local church must be the same as the world’s culture that surrounds it. I simply ask: why? Why must a local church’s culture copy the surrounding culture?
You said, “They might be preaching the Gospel effectively, but those in the church who count themselves as Christians can be rightfully frustrated by how out of touch and inauthentic the Christian culture can seem.”
By “Christian culture” do you mean the style of the singing, the style of dress, and church activities?
When you say that Christians can be rightfully frustrated by how out of touch and inauthentic the Christian culture can seem, do you mean that they don’t mimic the surrounding culture? Specifically, what do you mean by “out of touch”?
Next, you said, “I think the goal needs to be fostering an open and honest environment where Christians don't have to pretend to be anything that they aren't. I can't believe how many times I've heard the same reaction from Christians who’ve read certain books from the last few years by authors who could be described as “emergent.” Without fail they talk about how the book felt so “real” to them. They use words like “authentic”, and “real”, not because the author was cooler than more traditional Christian writers, but because the author wasn’t afraid to be honest and open about real thoughts and ideas that Christians struggle with every day.”
I believe that while Emergent leaders claim they began this movement so they could be “real” with fellow believers, their real intent was so they could continue to be insincere and remain in a wishy-washy spiritual state. What it all boils down to is that folks who claim the ECM have a desire to rebel. They want to act and behave rudely, to catch people’s attention or to provide some element of shock-value. They don’t fit in with Christians who try to be well-mannered and set a good example. So they start their own movement where they can rebel as one. This is a fitting description of Donald Miller – since you’ve read Blue Like Jazz, you know exactly what I mean =).
Another untruth that the ECM has spread around is that modern day American Christianity has failed at being open and honest about struggles we face. I think of many in the Reformed camp, many in the Arminian camp, and others who are undecided – there are many who do a very good job of appropriately addressing human struggles.
You said, “No pastor needs to be concerned being relevant to his congregation by being cool, they simply need to be real about the Christian faith, to admit that its messy, it’s hard, and it won’t automatically make your life a walk in the park. I don’t think people can grow effectively in their personal faith until they’re able to be honest with themselves and the other Christians around them. That being said, let’s not sacrifice Biblical truth by getting all mushy and touchy feely about our faith. This isn’t about “finding ourselves” or “self-actualization”; it’s about having a relationship with a very real and very awesome God. Let’s live by his word and stand firm on his truth. Also, this doesn’t mean that we should accept sin because it’s “part of who we are.” That’s a silly cop out, and one that will only frustrate us and hinder our relationship with Christ.”
Amen. You are right on here. But I ask you then, are you saying that most churches are not real about the Christian faith? Are you saying that most churches do not admit that it’s messy and difficult? The ECM is late in the game if they want to argue that only they are emphasizing these things.
You said, “However, I think the emergent church is reacting to a real problem which is occurring inside the walls of churches all over the country that don’t seem to want to understand a large segment of their congregation.”
I’m assuming that by “a large segment of their congregation” you’re referring to youth? I do not believe for one second that a congregation doesn’t want to understand their youth. If you’re a parent, you know yourself and how concerned you are for your children’s physical and spiritual well-being. Parents and families who make up a congregation care very much about their youth and pray for them fervently. I’m sure you would agree with me here. Or is what you’re trying to say that the parents are resistant to stylistic changes in the singing, dress, and behavior? First of all, children are to submit to their parents. They are not to rebel. They are not to believe that their individual opinion matters above all the adults who have gained much more spiritual wisdom over the span of their lives. They are not to demand stylistic changes. Elders of a church make those decisions. Adults do not cater to the stylistic preferences of the youngest generations. This doesn’t mean they ignore them, but they don’t have to change the singing style to Screamo to keep the little ones satisfied. Children should go to church because they are submitting to their parents. =)
You said, "I want to think that we’re simply disagreeing on different methods by which new churches are addressing this problem, but is it possible that you don’t think that there’s a problem at all?"
There are many problems with the American Church today. For example: the existence of the ECM =). Christians are incorporating postmodernism into the church. They are incorporating worldliness. They are adapting to the world's culture so they can be more relevant. Many in our churches are buying this sort of garbage. So yes, there are problems with the Church today.
If you would please answer the scattered questions throughout this post, it will greatly benefit our conversation. I appreciate your willingness to talk about this subject. Btw, do I know you in real life, Isaac?
In the Saving Faith of Our Lord,
Casey
Wow... some great discussion going on here. I think this may be one of the first times I've heard this issue clearly and thoughtfully discussed in the light of God's Word. Thank you Isaac, and thank you Casey!
I have been wrestling through these points myself lately... and I think I'm reaching a conclusion. Personally, I'm going to lean to the more conservative side of things... I'd rather err on the side of obedience than carelessly deal with God's Word. But here are a few things that I've thought of.
I go to a great church. Firm in doctrine and set on following God's Word in all things, I am excited to be involved in a church body that wants to serve and wants to know the Lord better. It's funny, though... some things that I see happen there I know some people would call "catering to the culture". To be honest, the guys behind the curtain have their act together! Everything really looks "cool". But I know the hearts behind it... each one of them is using his or her own gifts and talents to try and serve their Lord and His people. We never try to "fit in".
I think we need to look at this issue in two different areas of life. One is missional (uncomfortable with the word, but you get my meaning)... we are told ALL OVER Scripture to reach the lost. Paul himself altered his way of teaching and way of life in certain ways to reach the people he shared the Gospel with. Never once did he alter the message. His goal was not to change in order to "look good".. but to reach some.
This is where the Emerging / Emergent church has missed the mark. We want to attract people to the Gospel - yes! Amen! - but not seek to be attractive in and of ourselves.
The way we share the Good News of the Gospel will change. As a former missionary, I know this to be the case. Reaching Hispanics is different than reaching college students; sharing with tribal Mexicans and sharing with my next door neighbor are both going to look extremely different. And yet - the same thing is offered to each: the Gospel. Nothing more and nothing less.
The church is, first and foremost, for the meeting and fellowship of believers - where born again Christians should meet, study the Word, and worship together. Then - together - we go forth and preach the Good News. We must not be so outward minded that we become consumed with "people-pleasing". We must not forget the God-given, Biblical function of the church.
I just recently saw Driscoll in person, and everything I heard from him was great. Perhaps I misjudged him and sang his praises too quickly. No, I have never read his books. I've never actually been to a Mars Hill church service. Perhaps he, too, has fallen into the dangerous over-relevant mentality of the ECM today.
Hmmm. God help us.
We must pray for wisdom when confronted with these very serious issues. One thing I know for sure - the message of Christ and Him crucified and should - and WILL - never change.
Hi Hannah!
"This is where the Emerging / Emergent church has missed the mark. We want to attract people to the Gospel - yes! Amen! - but not seek to be attractive in and of ourselves."
I agree that it is ridiculous for the church to seek to be attractive in and of ourselves to nonbelievers. However, I do NOT believe this is where the ECM has missed the mark. You will hear from the mouths of many Emergents that they are trying to attract people to the gospel, not to themselves, and that may be their honest intnetion. But I believe it is folly for us to attempt to attract nonbelievers to the gospel by any other means than how the Bible commands us to.
Consider what Rusty quoted from his Pastor in this original post: "But my pastor has a saying: “What you win folks with is what you win folks to.” In other words, if you use post-modernism and worldliness, you’ve won them to post-modernism and worldliness." THAT is why in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 Paul makes clear that he went OUT OF HIS WAY to show that GOD is wise and persuasive, and not PAUL. The gospel does not need a hip and glamorous frame. God makes Himself known to humans DESPITE their humanity. Our attempts to attract people are only a distraction from what is truly valuable, and they are utterly unnecesarry.
Amen to your last paragraph. God will preserve His Word. Was it not He that caused us to believe in the first place? Let us, then, not contaminate the gospel with the superficial.
By His Grace,
Cory Ryan
Wow! This is awesome! I've been thinking about this a lot lately also. I really want to follow scripture in this area, and therefore, I want to know what is a biblical response and outlook to this issue.
I have a couple of questions:
First of all, Rusty, you said:
"I believe that while Emergent leaders claim they began this movement so they could be “real” with fellow believers, their real intent was so they could continue to be insincere and remain in a wishy-washy spiritual state. What it all boils down to is that folks who claim the ECM have a desire to rebel. They want to act and behave rudely, to catch people’s attention or to provide some element of shock-value. They don’t fit in with Christians who try to be well-mannered and set a good example. So they start their own movement where they can rebel as one. This is a fitting description of Donald Miller"
Is this something that the Emergent/Emerging Church has said? I myself like Isaac said am not an expert on the topic, which is the very reason I have questions, but a lot of what is said in that statement seems more like assumptions or opinion-based statements.
Also, do you think that there is a problem with American churches that are on the opposite side of the Emergent/Emerging Church? Because, I think that there should be a fine balance between the two...even Paul says that he became like some to win some, as long as what he was doing was still honoring and glorifying to God. I definitely do not think that American churches should conform to worldy culture that is not honoring to Christ, which frankly, most of it, in my opinion, isn't, but we still do need to be relevant? It appears as though you are looking at the emerging church as more of a problem than the churches that are not relevant whatsoever. Is that true?
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!
WOW...thank everyone for the very thought provoking discussion (especially you case for studying up on the emerging/emergent church). Just like Hannah, I attend a church that has some things people would call "attractional devices" to the outside (ie- lights, huge speakers, rocking out worship at 1 service); but as I have met with and know many of those up front I have seen their hearts for the church, and they are just using their gifts NOT trying to impress people with music, light shows, etc. This week I have had many of these types of discussions. Lots of things to think about...going to God's word.
Amy,
You asked, “Is this something that the Emergent/Emerging Church has said?”
Emergent leaders have not explained their motivations in a negative light as I have, but that’s a given =). What they have done is make excuses to abandon their local churches and start their own so they can continue their rude behavior. The result is the ECM as we know it.
You said, “I myself like Isaac said am not an expert on the topic, which is the very reason I have questions, but a lot of what is said in that statement seems more like assumptions or opinion-based statements.”
I recommend that you read Phil Johnson’s article on the ECM. Also, read John MacArthur’s recent blog series on post-modernism and the movement. Please let me know if you need either of the links.
You asked, “Also, do you think that there is a problem with American churches that are on the opposite side of the Emergent/Emerging Church?”
There is no such thing as a perfect church. Whenever a group of sinners (even redeemed sinners) gets together, you know they will have some problems. Could you define what you mean by “the opposite side of the Emerging Church”?
You said, “Because, I think that there should be a fine balance between the two...”
Could you explain what you mean by “balance between the two”?
You continued, “...even Paul says that he became like some to win some, as long as what he was doing was still honoring and glorifying to God.”
It’s difficult for me to respond to this since you are not familiar with the ECM. We can talk about this once you’ve read the above suggested reading material – specifically Phil Johnson’s article.
You asked, “I definitely do not think that American churches should conform to worldy culture that is not honoring to Christ, which frankly, most of it, in my opinion, isn't, but we still do need to be relevant?”
Are you asking if we need to be relevant?
You said, “It appears as though you are looking at the emerging church as more of a problem than the churches that are not relevant whatsoever.”
The Emerging Church Movement is a problem. I’m not sure what churches you’re referring to that are not at all relevant?
You concluded, “Is that true? Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion!”
You betchya. =)
Case
Thank you, Prince Cor. ;) I see what you mean. I will never forget that quote... "What you win folks with is what you win folks to." Now that's scary.
Casey,
I'd agree that leaving a church because they don't play your favorite songs, dress like you, or talk like you is "shallow." But I think you dismissed the most important of the ECM's claims about the traditional American church a little prematurely. If you feel like you can't be real with the other Christians at your church or (maybe more accurately) that the other Christians at your church aren’t being real with you, than we have a major problem on our hands. I find it hard to believe that every ECM leader is nothing more than an unrepentant hell-raiser looking for attention. The image of a stubborn believer leaving in a huff to start his own church where he can use four-letter words and smoke without getting hassled by his parents is unrealistic and comical. It also becomes a pretty simplistic explanation when you come face to face with some of these ministries and realize that they’re passionately pursuing God, and helping others to know him more. Again, I’m not trying to defend ECM as a whole, I’m sure that there are some examples of truly pitiful ECM churches that are unbiblical and confused. But be honest Casey, I don’t think we can have a fruitful discussion about the modern church if we so easily make vast assumptions about the spiritual and psychological state of such a diverse body of people. It reminds me of debates I would see in college where atheists would assume that people who became Christians did so because they were either raised that way or irrational and given to superstition. My Christian friends and I would groan when we heard them say this. What a quick way to dismiss millions of people in one easy stroke! I think it’s very possible that many of these ECM Christians had a desire for fellowship and teaching that was not being fulfilled at traditional churches. They started their own churches because they wanted something more relevant. Here’s where I should clear up what we’re actually talking about when we use the word ‘relevant’. I think I’ve been pretty clear in saying that I don’t think Churches should be “copying” the modern culture, but I do think they should be engaged in it. The difference between those two approaches is critical. You can ‘copy’ modern culture without understanding it (which is why I cringe at ‘arena-rock style services’, which are proof that you can dress up like a band, play guitars really loud, and still not ‘get’ rock music), but when you are engaged in modern culture, you’re able to evaluate it, understand it critically, and better minister to the people that are swimming around in it all day, both Christian and non-Christian. In many cases, I think ECM churches tried to accomplish this goal by stripping away some of Christian culture that had become irrelevant, and not by necessarily adding new things to it. I think they asked some simple questions (Why are we dressing up like we’re going to work? Why are we still sitting in pews? Why do pastors have to preach in that old southern Baptist affectation?), and some harder questions (What does it mean to know God personally? What does fellowship between believers really look like? How can we be authentic followers?). In order to address these issues, some churches have had to make some big changes to the traditional American church model, and though I’d agree that on occasion the results have been reactionary and extreme, that shouldn’t automatically make us dismiss the ECM’s premise. Casey, I know you disagree with the ECM as a whole, but I think you’d agree that the church can’t remain static, especially in its current state, which sometimes looks like a Disney parade float celebrating 1950’s America.
And yes, I do know you through high school group. I still read this blog every now and then to see how you’re doing.
Isaac [Rentz]?
You said, “Casey, I'd agree that leaving a church because they don't play your favorite songs, dress like you, or talk like you is "shallow."”
Glad to hear it.
You said, “But I think you dismissed the most important of the ECM's claims about the traditional American church a little prematurely. If you feel like you can't be real with the other Christians at your church or (maybe more accurately) that the other Christians at your church aren’t being real with you, than we have a major problem on our hands.”
If you’ve read “Blue Like Jazz,” then you know that Donald Miller’s reasons for leaving his church were a combination of each of the reasons I listed in my previous response to you. Mark Driscoll as well. Again, when guys blatantly rebel like those two gentlemen do, it’s no wonder they don’t feel they can be “real” with fellow believers. Let’s use some specific examples … Donald Miller’s living with hippies, or Driscoll’s foul language. Are these things wrong? These two men represent the most conservative wing in the ECM. Guys like McLaren only get worse.
You said, “The image of a stubborn believer leaving in a huff to start his own church where he can use four-letter words and smoke without getting hassled by his parents is unrealistic and comical.”
It is comical. And yet this is precisely what leaders of the ECM have done.
You said, “It also becomes a pretty simplistic explanation when you come face to face with some of these ministries and realize that they’re passionately pursuing God, and helping others to know him more.”
Wouldn’t you agree that having passion doesn’t equal pursuing God rightly? Is incorporating post-modernism into the church pursuing God rightly?
You said, “Again, I’m not trying to defend ECM as a whole, I’m sure that there are some examples of truly pitiful ECM churches that are unbiblical and confused. But be honest Casey, I don’t think we can have a fruitful discussion about the modern church if we so easily make vast assumptions about the spiritual and psychological state of such a diverse body of people.”
Your assumption seems to be that I am unfairly accusing the ECM of being post-modern and worldly. So I can get an idea of where you’re coming from, have you read Phil Johnson’s renowned article on the ECM? Have you read the more famous works by McLaren and Driscoll? The reason I’m asking is because it appears you might not be familiar with the positions set forth by Emergent leaders.
You said, “I think it’s very possible that many of these ECM Christians had a desire for fellowship and teaching that was not being fulfilled at traditional churches.”
Like who? Driscoll and Miller? They didn’t like the stylistic preferences of their churches so they left. Isn’t that rather shallow? Christians need to desire Biblical teaching and preaching … something the ECM is in desperate need of (as well as much of Evangelicalism).
You said, “You can ‘copy’ modern culture without understanding it (which is why I cringe at ‘arena-rock style services’, which are proof that you can dress up like a band, play guitars really loud, and still not ‘get’ rock music), but when you are engaged in modern culture, you’re able to evaluate it, understand it critically, and better minister to the people that are swimming around in it all day, both Christian and non-Christian.”
Ironically, I completely agree with you here. Christians need to know those they are ministering to. But they are not to engage in sinful aspects of the culture – like the ECM does … like Driscoll and Miller.
You said, “Casey, I know you disagree with the ECM as a whole, but I think you’d agree that the church can’t remain static…”
Define “static” ... and I’ll let you know if I can agree with you =)
Casey
"Ironically, I completely agree with you here. Christians need to know those they are ministering to. But they are not to engage in sinful aspects of the culture – like the ECM does..."
Yes! Thank you for saying this, Casey. I think this is exactly the point I have been trying to work through... we need to know who we are ministering to in order to properly meet their needs and share the Gospel with them, but that does not in any way give us license to engage with unbelievers in the sinful aspects of our culture.
There is definitely a healthy balance that must be found. We must be in the world, but not of it.
Rusty,
Thanks for the response.
First of all, when I say the opposite side of the Emerging Church what I'm trying to say is churches that are not relevant whatsoever and judge people for little things that they do, or places that they are at in life or their past. I have had many experiences like this even at my own church. I've also been to some churches that are so uber-conservative that it almost seems like church is just a routine instead of going to fellowship and learn more about Christ. I don't know, that might just be me reading into it.
By "balance between the two" I mean the exact same thing that Hannah said; that we should be in the world but not of it.
Third of all, I do not have the links to the two things you would like me to read, but if I could get those from you, I would be happy to look into it!
Amy,
Here's Phil Johnson's renowned article:
http://emergentno.blogspot.com/2006/03/phil-johnson-critical-look-at-emerging.html
Here is the first part of Pastor John MacArthur's ECM blog series: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/28/introducing-the-emerging-church-part-1/
The rest of MacArthur's series is linked from MacArthur's blog (which is also linked from my blog)
=)
Enjoy
CoB
Post a Comment
<< Home