The Bishops' Pulpit

Suggestions for Critics of the Emerging Church - by Michael Spencer

This article from Next Wave online magazine seemed so poignant that I thought I'd gank it and post it: the ideas are Michael Spencer's (who I know very little about) but I like what he had to say:

----------------------------

Criticism of the emerging/missional church is growing among traditionalists, fundamentalists and many of the reformed. I don’t like to argue, so I thought I might offer a contribution to the discussion. Critics of the emerging, missional church: a few questions/suggestions for you to contemplate…uh, think about. In your free time.

There’s a lot I would like to say, but let’s keep it to five. Ex: The definition of postmodernism that drives these criticisms is uniformly rejected by emerging church-sympathetic theologians and philosophers. (See James Smith’s book.) Why do we continue, then, to read page after page explaining that all postmodernism is evil enlightenment philosophy? And then there’s the entire matter of whether the emerging church is routinely confused with the Rick Warren/Boomer style church marketing approach. And on and on and on…Anyways.

1. Would it be possible to hold on to the basic goodness of words like “missional” and “incarnation?” I’d hate for these good words to become casualties of conflict. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for clarification of why Ed Stetzer missionalism is good but Mall church’s missionalism is bad. Better yet, let’s just declare these terms off limits and find better words, or even whole sentences, to describe the problem.

When I read bloggers saying that “missional” is a term that should be avoided, it’s a Twilight Zone moment. And when we are warning about churches that stress the incarnation too much, I want to call John Shelby Spong and ask if he’s watching the same channel I am.

There are substantial criticisms that can be made without taking away words that we need to trust and promote.

2. How about chapter and verse on what it is you are criticizing? By chapter and verse, I mean specific quotations and citations from books and talks.

I can’t speak for everyone, but my head is completely spinning here. Who and what are being criticized? Your criticisms are obviously serious, but they are aimed at a huge, dispersed target that starts to look less real the more I look for it. When Dr. Piper took on the issues of open theism and the new perspective on Paul, he wrote books with specific targets, lots of footnotes, and direct citations and quotations from Boyd and Gundry. That’s missing in much of the current criticism of the emerging church, and it’s getting worse. You’ve gone after Brian Mclaren, but after that it’s very murky. Where are Jones, Kimball, Bell, Bolger, McKnight and company wrong specifically? Exactly? And since we’re all flawed, what is the import of those errors?

For example, in the recent DGM conference, Dr. Carson spoke of those advocating the great commandments in contrast to the cross/resurrection. Who exactly is he talking about? Where? Is this a reference to Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed? (That was my feeling, but Dr. McKnight disagrees, for the record.)

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to men far more knowledgeable than me and to whom I am greatly in debt, but after we’ve done in a few quotes from Brian Mclaren, I’m not hearing many helpful specifics. (I’m not counting the research department at Slice.) Could this be repaired? I think a lot of good men deserve to be distinguished from those truly deserving criticism, and I’d like to have some specifics to blog about in my free time.

3. When you refer to the “emerging church,” it’s very confusing. You seem unaware of any differences in Christians identifying with this conversation. I know that reformed Christians like for distinctions to be made between reformed with various emphases and teachings. The differences among the reformed on sacraments, ecclesiology, worship and relationships with other Christians are substantial. It seems relatively simple to ask that everyone who says “we are trying to reach the postmodern emerging culture,” not be saddled with every fault and criticism of every book/talk by Mclaren. It’s safe to say that anyone who knows the emerging church well is immediately put off by a critic who assumes every emerging church is Rob Bell preaching, David Crowder leading worship and a candlelit midrash on Colossians following a prayer walk through a maze.

Conservative evangelicals would find it immediately revealing of one’s level of understanding if someone showed no apparent knowledge of a substantial difference between J.I. Packer and T.D. Jakes. I’d suggest that what may be under the umbrella of emerging Christianity is a diversity at least as wide. It occurs to me that Calvinists, in particular, know what it’s like to be misrepresented, and ought to be more careful about doing so to others. If I call the SBC Founders or James White “hypers,” I’m going to be justifiably lectured and straightened out. Well.if the shoe fits folks. And it does.

In particular, it’s strange to hear the emerging church spoken of as denying the deity and supremacy of Christ, or of de-emphasizing the cross and resurrection. I am sure there are some emerging church types doing exactly that, but those of us listening to the emerging church---and I am listening to a diverse group of emerging voices without joining any of them---are not necessarily hearing these things. Some of us are hearing a recovery of interest in the incarnation and a recovery of the importance of the Kingdom life, ministry and proclamation of Jesus. This is a good and valuable recovery. Good scholars like N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight and Stan Grenz, however, present a strong emphasis on the supremacy of Jesus and his death/resurrection for our sins and justification.

I am all for criticism that specifically points out the errors you protest, but I do not believe a kind of generalized, pop-level, broad stroke criticism of all emerging churches is fair. Frankly, it appears to be calculated to hang an albatross around the neck of a whole branch of the Christian family. Many- most- emerging churches preach and teach the Bible, believe the creeds and know the Gospel is a message of a crucified God dying for sins. Many emerging churches are presenting this in places and in ways few traditionalists dare. Make fun of churches in bars and coffeeshops if you want, but somehow I think that the safety of the sanctuary of old First Church is a considerably less difficult place to name Christ Jesus as Lord than in the gathering places of the world. If these emerging Christians are going to pubs and talking about beer, then criticize them. If they are having theology discussions and naming Christ as Lord, leave them alone. Better yet, let’s pray for them.

4. It’s possible that you may have opted to criticize the emerging church at a point where its flaws are most obvious and its assets less visible. The prominence of McLaren as a target, and the silence about the many, and there are many, churches gernuinely reaching the lost in emerging, postmodern culture indicates to me that the consideration of the emerging church is quite possibly on-target, but also too early.

Many of us believe that the questions and critiques of the traditional church in the last 30 years have been well placed, but the response, especially in theology and ecclesiology, is not yet obvious. The higher profile emerging church leaders have been reluctant to speak for one another for this very reason: what the emerging church response to the traditional church will be is an on-going process. It is not the liberalism of some in Emergent Village. It is not an embracing of the liberalism of the mainlines, even though some emerging leaders have gone over that fence. It is quite possible that the eventual result will be very influenced by the reformed resurgence of the past 20-30 years.

If that proves to be true, a declaration of war/heresy by reformed critics will be unfortunate. When I read reformed critics openly ridiculing the appearance, music and worship styles of twenty-somethings, all in the name of criticizing the emerging church, I am saddened. One major reformed critic ran a picture of David Crowder as an object of humor on a post. In fact, Crowder and this critic have very much in common, and the brushing of Crowder into the category of promoting the betrayal of the Gospel because he is popular with the emerging church is a huge mistake.

5. Finally, I want to admonish you to consider if the emerging church is not the true child of the missionary principles and missional theology that have been influential in evangelicalism for more than half a century. When evangelicals learn the principles of taking the Gospel to other cultures, they begin to see the traditional church through missionary eyes. It is not insignificant that the leaders of the emerging church are missional thinkers, evangelists, missiologists and students of the church in other cultures. They have taken the perspectives course. They have been to OneDay. They know what the 10/40 Window is all about. They are aware of missions like few other generations of western Christians.

The Reformers did much that was right. They also failed at some key points. A fully articulated, cross-cultural missionary theology was one failure. That failure was repaired by later generations, but the idea that the church is to become comfortably allied with the dominant conservative culture remained. Today, thousands of dying churches are memorials to the influence the church once had in culture, but has no longer. Many of those churches have specifically said no, over and over, to making changes that could reach the culture. They are dying rather than embrace missionary principles that could save them.

Emerging churches have sent up the signal that the church is not the expression of a post-war boomer and greatest generation culture. They are ridiculed for “tattoos and piercings” in the congregation, but this is because many critics are invested more in the preservation of a cultural expression of the church than in a missional approach to the Gospel that goes with culture, and goes into sub and counter cultures. It is not a matter of “holiness,” as some blogs strangely assume, but a matter of Christ for all people and all cultures.

To blanketly criticize the emerging church is, honestly, to criticize thousands of missionaries who love and minister to people who will never find their way into the traditional church. It is often to criticize churches and church plants who are growing by true conversion growth rather than by sucking up Christians out of the suburbs into the megachurches. It is to criticize those who do what we commend missionaries for doing.

In fact, many of the critics of the emerging church talk about the supremacy of Christ while their criticisms suggest the supremacy of a kind of church culture. All who deny the supremacy of Christ should be called out and confronted. All those who safeguard the supremacy of established evangelical culture in America should be criticized as well. Everywhere I go I see American flags in church sanctuaries. Yesterday, I saw the American flag displayed over the Christian flag on a flagpole in front of a large fundamentalist church. In that same church I heard emerging churches castigated for their music. Does anyone think the emerging church would have the American flag in a worship center? It’s laughable. Yet where is the criticism for that idolatry? Why the silence? Is that not a denial of the supremacy of Christ?

Many of the criticisms brought to the table and leveled at the emerging church are valid. There is a myriad of flaws with the emerging church movement, and much that must be corrected. There is also a myriad of flaws and concerns with the traditional conservative church. Some emerging critics of the traditional church have been too strident, and their town has been arrogant and unkind. This probably makes criticism of the emerging church easier.

Perhaps both sides should look closer, listen better, pray more and speak with more awareness of what the other party is seeing, feeling and saying. I pray that a time of constructive guidance and partnership will come soon, and that emerging churches will be mentored and encouraged, rather than only being portrayed in exaggerated terms as betraying the heart of the Gospel.

----------------

Michael Spencer has been a minister, youth specialist, writer, teacher and communicator in churches and schools for over 30 years. "I am deconstructing and moving past my evangelicalism; rediscovering what it means to be vitally connected to Jesus. That process is always worth sharing."

Posted by currie at October 21, 2006 11:09 PM | TrackBack