Cheap Grace, Legalism, and the Emerging(ent) Church (Part 3)
June 9, 2007 by Brad
To start off, I was really surprised that the last post didn’t elicit any comments. Oh well. This one should be interesting. Oh and if you actually get the joke in this comic, this post is nothing new to you.
This part will be about the Emerging and Emergent Church. These terms are thrown around a lot and often used incorrectly to refer to different things. I prefaced this section with the discussions on legalism and cheap grace because knowledge of these two extremes of Christianity will help create a fuller picture of the distinction between the Emerging and Emergent Church.
So several years ago, Mark Driscoll and several other unknown pastors exploded onto the church scene for being able to figure out how to minister to a postmodern culture. “Postmodernism” is the culture type and label that most 20-somethings currently fall under. As the name suggests, it is a reaction to the modernist culture that was typcial of the baby-boomer generation. One of the main characteristics of the postmodern culture is a search for meaning beyond the enlightenment, reasoning, and prepackaged answers of our parents. It can be very deconstructionist and skeptical of any kind of tradition (which is why the global church was, and mostly still is, failing so miserably). The goal was the same (introducing the unchurched to a relationship with Jesus Christ), but the methods slowly started diverging in different directions.
The crowd now referred to as the “Emergent Church” is led by the likes of Brian McLaren and Doug Paggit. Their method of reaching the postmodern culture was to shape their theology to accommodate the culture. This has led to a reluctance to talk about the “imperatives” of scripture, or discuss the hard, uncomfortable truths of the bible.
The crowd now referred to as the “Emerging Church” is exemplified by an organization called the Acts 29 Network, which is a loose affiliation or network of churches whose dedicated mission is to actively plant churches, or at least support church planting. Included in their leadership is the (in)famous Mark Driscoll, and St. Louis’s own Darrin Patrick. Their method of reaching the postmodern culture is to show how scripture is relevant to culture, and does not need to accommodate because God’s word is eternal and spans all cultures and generations. Mark Driscoll explained this best by saying that he holds scripture tightly in one hand (making a fist) and he holds culture very loosely in his other (holding his hand out flat). Culture is the fruit of our unique reflection of God’s image that is to be celebrated as long as it is done within the guidance of scripture.
Both Emerging and Emergent Churches appear very similar. Both often shed traditional choirs for rock bands (mostly good ones), church steeples for warehouses, stained glass for painted canvas, and suits and skirts for jeans and t-shirts. I doubt you would even be able to tell the difference between them if it weren’t for the message of their preaching, doctrine, and publications. It is because of this that these very similar terms are often confused for each other.
As I’m sure you have guessed, I am not a fan of the first group, and a card carrying member of the second. I could go on all day about how much I agree with the theologically conservative Emerging Church, but I would be repeating much of the same information I already wrote about here. I appreciate the intent and goal of the Emergent Church, but I would have to agree with a growing crowd that their methods are dependent on their own ingenuity and not the power of God’s word. This is not to say that the Emerging Church is without fault. For those of you who know how much I respect Mark Driscoll’s preaching (some would even use the word “idolatry”), I have recently become aware that he can often have a legalist tone to his message. Often, it is used to prove a point and may be very much needed and necessary within the context of his Seattle congregation, but it is still there nonetheless. He still rocks. No worries, Mark.
Now, a word about St. Louis in all this…
Anthony Bradley, professor at Covenant Seminary, has mentioned to me that he thinks that the “conversation” about an emerging church is a dead horse that needs to stop being kicked, and that it is high time to do something with what we’ve learned as a result. Darrin Patrick and the church he pastors in has been, in my humble opinion, a great example of this. In their less than 5 years of existence, they have planted 1 church, 2 campuses, and have another church plant in the works. Their congregation (last I heard) was over 1,000, and is located in the city.
And that’s what I’m talkin’ about!
And my own denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, is dedicated to being missional to our culture. Our church, Green Tree Community Church, has planted 4 churches and has a fifth in the works in their 10 years of existence (and they spent their first 3 years without a pastor!). I have been greatly encouraged to see more and more churches take up the banner and plant churches, go out into the community, and love our neighbor as Christ loves us. I don’t know whether it is because I am slowly becoming more aware of this fact that has been going on for a while now, or if it is a movement that is picking up speed. It is far more likely to be the former, but I am sure that it is some combination of the two.
I hope and pray that this movement will continue to ignite the hearts and minds of the “lost generation” that is my own age group (as well as anyone else between the ages of 18 and 30). A “revolution” is stirring, but it is a return to the origin (a true, authentic, and biblical relationship with Christ) rather than a rejection of it.
Regarding teh difference between “Emerging” and “Emergent” churches, from an outsider’s view here, it sounds like its two different ways of viewing the Christian philosophy and its relationship to the younger generations today. And I think I prefer the Emergent way more, although I’m not hot on avoiding hard or uncomfortable truths. Hmmm.
And as for maybe why people didn’t comment last time, it is very hard for me to get in on the conversation when your blogs are so chock-full of theological vocabulary. It is still very interesting to read, but hard to join in.
Thanks for this post. Love the comic and looking forward to part 4. Thanks for breaking down the differences between Emerging and Emergent. I’m not sure if I’ve shared this link with you, but heres a post I wrote on the Emerging church:
http://morefire.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/emerging-or-fundamentalism/
I’m glad to seet that I used the term “Emerging” in its proper context.
Blessings,
J
Kyle,
Dude, thanks for pointing out the theological heaviness. This blog is largely a practice in writing intelligibly, and the last thing I want to do is have it become an impractical or theoretical discussion that can’t be acted on. I will make more of an effort to explain a little better and make fewer assumptions. Thanks for pointing it out!
What is it about the Emergent camp that appeals to you so much more?
J,
Killer post. I definitely appreciate it. My only concern is in the second to last paragraph:
“In contrast, proponents of the Emerging Church admit a plurality of interpretations to scripture rather than an exclusively literal interpretation.”
I think I understand where you are going with this, but would seek to clarify a little. The EC’s success in reaching the postmodern culture is not so much because it embraces a plurality of interpretations, but because it interprets the gospel within a historical context and applies it literally to a plurality of unique cultures…. if that makes sense. Ideally, we take into consideration the time, place, audience, and authorship of scripture (context) to understand more fully what it is trying to communicate, and then apply it literally in a way that is unique and relevant to the culture that we are trying to reach.
And honestly, I can’t say that this is the way all or even most emerging churches do it, but I can fairly confidently say that this is what they SHOULD be doing! Again, killer post, I will probably post it on Part 4 to give others a little more info on the beginnings and similarities of the EC.
I’m having a hard time with this comment:
“The crowd now referred to as the “Emergent Church” is led by the likes of Brian McLaren and Doug Paggit. Their method of reaching the postmodern culture was to shape their theology to accommodate the culture.”
Is this really the case when it comes to McLaren, Paggit, and co. that their theology is dependent on culture? Or is it that they’ve merely considered culture and how it has changed, and the needs of culture in forumulating their theology. In reality, I find that their theology was more influenced by the likes of the enlightenment rather than postmodernism. I find that they are working through theology through a historical context rather than a post modern context, and then applying that theology to the current culture.
Is this right? I want to say no, but I end up wondering why. In fact, I keep wondering why when it comes to figuring out the right way to “do” theology.
So, fundamentalism “does” theology based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Well, how do they know to do that? Its God’s word. Well, why? How do we know that that is the end all be all? God said so. Well….how do we know that that is God? I would venture history. My point is this: we have little to go on in terms of how we “do” theology.
Thus, we come back to the idea of the Emerging/Emergent Church. Both of these stem from the same “conversation” but have branched into two different thought-lines. And dear God forgive me for putting emergent/emerging into classifcations, but the emerging church tends to be conservative while the emergent church tends to be liberal. But on what basis can we say that one is right/wrong/more correct/progressing towards more of what God wants/moving toward the right path, if either is in fact doing so?
All this I guess comes down to this: how do we determine how we “do” theology, and why? (the dreaded how/why point, oh philosophy how I love/loathe thee)
And your cartoon made me smile
“In reality, I find that their theology was more influenced by the likes of the enlightenment rather than postmodernism. I find that they are working through theology through a historical context rather than a post modern context, and then applying that theology to the current culture.”
Dan,
Hahaha, well, that is and can be quite true. Postmodernism was influenced and is a reaction to the enlightenment. Both Postmodernism and the Emergent crowd reject Modernism, but they have come to the same place. I guess that both our statements are and can be true. However, just because something was considered morally wring when the scripture was written doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply to a relativist culture that allows it. Their contextual interpretation is applied with an infinite flexibility.
Man, you’ve got some good stuff here…. let me start with this:
“So, fundamentalism “does” theology based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Well, how do they know to do that? … My point is this: we have little to go on in terms of how we “do” theology.”
Yes, to a degree, there is a leap of faith, but it is NOT an illogical one. God proves His word by fulfilling promises. The repeatedly fulfilled prophecies in the OT, for example, are unexplainably consistent throughout the ages, regardless of culture and circumstance. God does not change, and has stayed consistent through scripture and the ages. Things that come from God “line up” in a way that coincidence is just not possible. History, as you say, proves this. Scripture proves this. That seems to me like a TON to go on in terms of how we “do” theology.
The term “Emerging Church” generalizes a huge group of people, and I don’t mean to say that they have it perfect. I mean more that they are at least trying to be more faithful to getting it right than finding easy answers. The Emergent “conversation,” is also trying to be faithful to God’s intent and wishes for His creation, but they are relying on their own interpretation over that of a historical-contextual interpretation (i.e. things like Paul’s discussion of judgment and “giving the wicked over to temptation” in Romans 1, are discarded as “outdated” or vastly misinterpreted).
So, did that even answer your question? I hope it did, but I don’t know that I hit the heart of it…
Two observations:
1. It is modernism, not postmodernism, that is anti-tradition.
2. I hope the significance of the cartoon is that the imposter is using Typepad, and that the others are using WordPress.
brad
great post…i think there is a lotta confusion about terms. as is always the case, however. therefore, it is important to define what one means when discussing stuff. but i love what dr bradley said too. there is no time right now for talking more, but for acting. there are so many people who either acclaim or condemn anything “emerging” and ignore the fact that we are called to reach out to people of our generation, whether we do that through “emerging” techniques or not.
i also look forward to coming to greentree as they sound awesome.
peter
Brad, be very careful with your statements. Especially when you are talking about your brothers.
There is so much that is similar to what you are learning and doing and thinking to “them”. I HATE the us/them stuff…
“The crowd now referred to as the “Emergent Church” is led by the likes of Brian McLaren and Doug Paggit. Their method of reaching the postmodern culture was to shape their theology to accommodate the culture. This has led to a reluctance to talk about the “imperatives” of scripture, or discuss the hard, uncomfortable truths of the bible.”
Have you heard “them” speak and read their stuff or been to one of “their” churches? Many of “them” are going further back to a MORE historic Christianity than Mark or Darren. And, you can find just as many people who will call both of them legalists (or much worse titles) as you can people who are bothered by the Emergent fellows.
Stop the “us” vs. “them” language, it is unhelpful. These men are your brothers. Disagree with them by ministering and preaching differently, but fight fights that need fighting…
I remember the first week “Velvet Elvis” came out and there were already 82 “reviews” of it on Amazon. Basically it was Christians yelling at each other about how great or how terrible Rob Bell is…
This is destructive to his ministry, their ministry, etc.
Matt,
I wrote this post back in June, and have a more developed understanding of the dynamics now. I agree that the us v. them attitude is bad, and it can definitely be seen in my writing. My intent was to do far more distinguishment between very different philosophies of ministry, and less to create conflict where there was none.
I wrote this post as an attempt to clear up many of the misconceptions about those who are being successful in ministering to a post-Christian culture. My attempt and exercising an appropriate criticism (or discernment) on these methodologies, has understandably come off a bit combative. Striking the balance between “appropriate criticism” or “weighing and sifting” and being combative is something I am in the process of learning.
Also, Part 4 is considerably more reconciliatory, and I highly recommend reading it in conjunction with this one:
http://seminarianblog.com/2007/06/18/cheap-grace-legalism-and-the-emergingent-church-part-4/
Sounds attractive. I’m totally agree with you.