Introducing the ECM (Part 1)
November 28th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the next few weeks, Pulpit will be focusing on the Emerging Church Movement and the influence of postmodernism on the contemporary church. Many of these posts will come from John MacArthur’s upcoming book The Truth War (coming in Spring 2007). Today’s post, however, comes from his article in the Fall 2006 issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. The full text of this article, along with other helpful articles regarding the Emerging Church, can be read by obtaining a copy of the journal from The Master’s Seminary.
From the very beginning, the battle between good and evil has been a battle for the truth. The serpent, in the Garden of Eden, began his temptation by questioning the truthfulness of God’s previous instruction: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’? … “You surely shall not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:1,4–5). And this has been his tactic ever since—casting doubt on the straightforward revelation of God.
Throughout the centuries, this age-old war on truth has been repeatedly fought even within the church. The biblical writer Jude, for instance, faced such a situation when he wrote his epistle. Though he had wanted to write about the wonders of the common salvation that he shared with his readers, he was compelled instead to urge his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3). False teachers, like spiritual terrorists, had secretly crept into the church (v. 4). The lies they were spreading, like doctrinal hand grenades, were spiritually devastating. They were enemies of the truth, and Jude was compelled to expose and confront them.
Over the past few decades, the church in the United States has fought this very battle on several fronts. In the sixties and seventies, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy came under direct attack. The Bible, it was said, was full of errors, and thus could not be trusted as historically or scientifically accurate. In the eighties and nineties, the sufficiency of Scripture was targeted. The charismatic movement (with its need for additional revelation from God) and Christian psychology (with its emphasis on neo-Freudian counseling techniques) attempted to undermine the fact that God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Him,” as revealed in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:3).
As the millennium drew to a close, the attack on God’s revealed truth came in a new way. This time the relevance of Scripture was the point of attack. Rather than being directly maligned, the Bible was quietly discarded by church leaders for whom biblical teaching was simply not a major priority. “The Seeker Movement,” more or less advocated limiting the presentation of divine truth to what unbelievers are willing to tolerate.
A new movement is now arising in and around evangelical circles. Now, it appears, the main object of attack will be the perspicuity of Scripture. Influenced by postmodern notions about language, meaning, subjectivity, and truth, many younger evangelicals are questioning whether the Word of God is clear enough to justify certainty or dogmatism on any point of doctrine. Ironically, this new movement more-or-less ignores all of the previous debates. Instead, its proponents are much more interested in dialogue and conversation. As a result, propositional truth (which tends to end dialogue rather than start it) is scorned and rebuffed as an outmoded vestige of twentieth-century modernism.
This movement is very diverse and still developing, but it is generally referred to as “the Emerging Church.”
I am a non-traditional student at a private college in Kentucky. Perhaps it is because I am about 7-10 years older than the average student, but the “emergent” effects are clearly seen among the kids I know, and I doubt they have even heard of the emergent church. Obviously, the lack of knowledge pertaining to scripture is one key element. But they seem to hold all the elements of postmodernism- I am not sure why,but they do. No absolutes, no sure footing in scripture. It grieves me, and lends me to prayer and study.
I think this issue will only get worse.
Let us be glad our Lord is soveriegn over even error, and let us be faithful stewards of the Word of God.
It seems that the modern definition of “tolerance” is the culprit of those clinging to postmodernism. Dr. Voddie Baucham in his book “The Ever Loving Truth” said “The goal of religious relativism is not to be logical, but to be tolerant. Tolerance once meant putting up with someone or something in spite of the fact that one did not like or agree with the idea or the person. Today, however, tolerance has morphed into a big hairy monster that demands we not only put up with but even embrace and celebrate the views and practices of others. Furthermore, the new tolerance demands that we value the views and practices of other to the degree that we value our own.” Knowing this can be very helpful in reaching this generation and defending the Truth.
Amen Brother Steve, let us be faithful stewards of the Word of God!
Wait for it …
When the Emergents get a look at this brief description of what they’re doing, they’ll cry “foul” and claim it’s not based on any facts.
However, I am presonally excited about this series and this book by Dr. MacArthur.
To say that the emergent movement of today is a frighting reality would be an understatement. I am thankful that men like John MacArthur continually lay the ax at the base of the tree and swing hard enough to at least help damage the root. I don’t think there are enough evangelical leaders today saying what needs to be said regarding these things. I wonder though how much of the “questioning whether the Word of God is clear enough to justify certainty” is partly a result of the constant debate about what is certain truth? God’s Word IS certain not because we have settled that fact but because God has settled that fact based on who He is. There is nothing more certain than the one true God of all and doubt concerning this fact will not change the veracity of the fact. Because God IS certain, His word IS certain. The unclearity of scripture comes not from God but from mans UNWILLINGNESS to emerce himself in the actual study of it. Any true study of God’s word must flow out of a clean heart before God. I truly believe the writer of Hebrews sums it up with these words, “Without faith it is impossible to please Him:(Part of pleasing God is trusting in the certanty of Him and His word) for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” If one has no certainty in what God said, how can he have first had certainty that ‘God is’? Doesn’t God’s very character screem certainty at every level?
Simply the sanctified thoughts of one who does believe in God’s certainty.
For His Glory,
Terry
Once you leave or don’t actively believe that the word of God is powerful and is the only thing that changes lives then you come up with every one of the movements that MacArthur mentions.
Like Team Pyro uses:
“Is not My word like afire?” declares the Lord, “and like a bhammer which shatters a rock?
Jeremiah 23:29
“Dialouge and conversation” is a good thing. The Bible has to be the foundation, otherwise the conversing will have nothing to build on.
There are deep things in the Word which can be very beneficial to discuss and debate. And there are those truths that are clear truths which the true saint of the Lord would give his life before denying.
Thw Word of God must increase in every way possible.
“And the Word of God increased; … But the Word of God grew and multiplied. … So mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed.” Acts 6:7;12:24;19:20
Many of the emergent church followers don’t know anything about the Bible and it truly is sad.
Ask them to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit, what penal substitution is, and in fact just ask them if they know what the word “ecclesiology” means let alone their views on it.
They are living examples of what we all would be like without being strong in the Word.
For those on the outside looking in at their movement it is so painfully obvious that the American culture has influenced that church way way more than the Bible has.
All you need is love, tolerance, questioning authority/traditions, all these things they learned in Beatles’ songs, not the Scripture.
The Emergent Church does lack a solid confessional and communal basis, but that does not mean we cannot learn much from some of its proponents. In fact, I think we have much to learn from the insights that they have.
The Emergent Church as understood as a reaction to contemporary Evangelicalism I believe is a very authentic one. And I mean that in a good way. The problem with many people who are attacking it is that they are utilizing the label of “Emergent” to categorically caricature the movement. Carson so far has the been the only person I’ve read that tries to critique them fairly and carefully for which I commend him for.
John wrote…
“Many of the emergent church followers don’t know anything about the Bible and it truly is sad.
Ask them to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit, what penal substitution is, and in fact just ask them if they know what the word “ecclesiology” means let alone their views on it.”
But ask many of them who Jesus is and they can tell you all about him. Ask many emergents about the love of Christ and they can show you what it looks like. Ask many emergents about the cross and they can show you the one with the nail prints.
I know it’s a loosing battle making this subtle point on this blog..but come on…to say that someone doesn’t know what “penal substitution” is, isn’t proof that they “don’t know anything about the Bible.” In fact, more then likley it’s proof that we don’t need to a powerful and mighty God in pretty little theological boxes.
I am very excited about this series as well. I just finished an interesting book;
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Emerging-Culture-Five-Perspectives/dp/0310254876
God Bless
Just popped in.. just to let you know it wasn’t a subtle point anyway. And to be honest, neither was it even halfway accurate. Half of all the conversations I’ve had with those of an emerging persuasion have simply obscured exactly who Jesus Christ is.
Define the Jesus to whom you refer.. is it the one Annie Lamott (sp?) has cosy buddy chats with? The one Rob Bell can breathe in?
This powerful and mighty God is well able to define who Jesus Christ is for us, and I’d rather take His Word for it, than go on the emerging consensus.
Excellent post by Dr. MacArthur.I think one of the biggest problems with this movement, and those similar to it, is the lack of reverence for the holiness of God. They talk of Christ like they’re talking about a ‘buddy’ they have coffee with. We talk of God so flippantly, and if you’re sober minded in worship, you’re considered ’stiff’. We need more of a holy, reverence for the LORD and His Word.
Libbie,
I have met some Emergent who had a good doctrinal understanding of such things. This goes to show that you cannot categorize this movement like you would a heretical sect like Pelagianism.
There is a very good kind of Emergent that we see in Mark Driscoll.
Someone popped:
“In fact, more then likley it’s proof that we don’t need to a powerful and mighty God in pretty little theological boxes”
I speak as one who once didn’t know much about theology and thought he did (I am an ex-word-of-faither). I had a similar attitude, theology was bad, narrow-minded, quenched the spirit.
I learned the hard way that theology is important. God’s truths are not little boxes (the WoF folks use the same criticism), they are the grand glorious majestic principles of God that never change. They are the foundations of the universe, as immutable as God because they are a part of Him. They aren’t up for negotiation (neither conversation nor majesterium can change them). They are not up for either deconstruction or reconstruction. They are not subject to man’s opinions (private interpretation), including the opinion we can’t understand them. They are life or death, leaving no middle ground. You must choose (by God’s grace alone) either for or against. There is no fence to sit on, only cliffs to fall off of, and a cross (and Savior) to cling to.
Allow me to share a bit:
After much self-flagellation while under the influence of WoF, I engaged in a systematic survey of the history of Christian thought, focussing on the early church and the reformation. I hoped to find ways to improve my WoFness, to avoid the self-flagellating “mistakes” I had made applying my “faith”.
Instead, almost nothing of my theology survived except that I still believed the Bible was the word of God. John’s earlier accusation of emergent ignorance applied to me, I knew nothing of the Bible, though I had often read it cover-to-cover. Cults do that too, it doesn’t help them, neither did it help me.
Sitting at the feet of the great Bible teachers (theologians) of history is what helped. May I recommend http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil, the hall of church history is a priceless treasure. The heresy hunting sites also helped a lot.
It was one of the most profound shocks of my life, to find out my “Christianity” was a total sham, a mockery of what it should have been, that I was a prideful self-righteous willing slave to sin, a professional wind-blown leaf, skilled at catching every user-fiendly breeze of doctrine as it blew by.
I learned that false teachers and heresy are necessary and even ubiquitous, sent by God, to reveal who is loyal to His word, and who is willing to chase after anything and everything else (like I did).
If you don’t know theology, which takes grace and a lot of sweat to learn, you have no defense against such things. You are likely just a goat, waiting to be led to slaughter. Boxes are there for your protection, to keep the bad out, and the good in. Everyone has boxes. It is a question of finding the right boxes, and they are found in scripture alone.
I’m a 21 year old college student and I can totally see this urge within my peer and even myself sometimes to want to just discuss things rather than actually get to the truth. Getting to the truth often invovles someone being wrong, and no one wants to be wrong or tell someone else that they’re wrong, especially when you respect the other people. But I’ve really realized that it can’t be that way, there is a time when the discussion needs to end and we just say that’s what the bible says, so believe it.
Just Popped In said…
“But ask many of them who Jesus is and they can tell you all about him. Ask many emergents about the love of Christ and they can show you what it looks like. Ask many emergents about the cross and they can show you the one with the nail prints.
I know it’s a loosing battle making this subtle point on this blog..but come on…to say that someone doesn’t know what “penal substitution” is, isn’t proof that they “don’t know anything about the Bible.” In fact, more then likley it’s proof that we don’t ”
I think Kurt Hutchinson hit it on the nail. What I’d like to add is that many of the emergents do not know what the significance is of those nails, in fact nobody does with out some solid Biblical study as in who were those nails for, when was it planned, why did those nails have to be in Jesus, etc…
I’m not accusing all the emergents of being non-Christians! But sadly all they know and can handle is milk. There’s no prb with that for new believers, the problem comes Just Popped In when you
Try to set up a model of church without knowing what the Bible says about its nature. The good ppl I talked to in the movement that are really nice and do have a heart for the lost just think, “hey we should get as many unbeliever’s into church, teach them what God wants, and hopefully they’ll become Christians.” That is a good thought and something Church’s should do, but by no means should that be the foundation of church.
What I was trying to say about theology and more specifically ecclesiology is that they have absolutely no idea what the true Biblical nature of the church is and only run on “good ideas” that ultimately wreck havoc.
The entrance of the emmergent church theology seems to be an uncooked mixture of subjective truths that beg for definitions and morph into different meanings all the time. Some notable personalities in the Calvary Chapel movement have even been spotlighted by the Los Angeles Times that have been tangled into it, most notably, Chuck Smith Jr..
Post-Modernism’s philosophy should be explained more fully to Christians in order to understand the idea of what it is that makes the emmergent church so much a part of its polemic. Without some discussion as to what Post-Modernism is, the discussion of the emmergent church might fall on deaf ears.
Post-moderns have no use for objective truth and seemingly without conscience change statements and definitions on the whim of the moment. What makes the most friends seems to be the marching orders of the day for them, yet denying objective truth as suffocating their personal desires. What is alarming is that so many of the Emmergents are taking on this charactaristic and incorporating it into their “new” brand of theology and calling it Christian. MacArthur is right in that they desire dialogue instead of truth. Why have truth when dialogue can make the truth bend into what you wanted anyways?
MacArthur is a welcome teacher in adding his talent to explaining this “new” idea that is invading the church.
puzzletop
While it may be true that many people who would align themselves with the “emerging church” label do not have strong theological training, it would be incorrect to label the entire movement in this way.
As far as I can tell, most of the key, recognised “voices” of this movement are deeply theological. Probably not in the narrowly propositional, “tends to end dialogue rather than start it” way that John MacArthur prefers. But that does not mean they are taking God’s Word less seriously than him.
In fact, my experience (and my own personal testimony, as the son of a Baptist pastor, with three theological degrees and years of ministry experience) is that many of these people are asking the questions they are precisely BECAUSE they are taking the Bible MORE seriously than they ever have before.
I have shifted my inherited views on things from the role of women leaders in ministry, the right to bear arms, the death penalty, the desirability of ‘freedom’ as an over-arching human concern (especially given the “West’s” current obsession with defending “their freedoms” by fuelling civil war and violence in the Middle East), the function and form of missional endeavours, the role of the church in society, and many other issues, BECAUSE I have gone back to Scripture and am trying to fully understand its meaning, rather than simply parroting the stylised answers fundamentalist Christians often have for these and other issues.
It is weak research, bad logic and lazy reasoning to simply pack all emergent leaders into a box and label it: “Don’t take Scripture seriously” or “don’t know what the Bible says on ‘theology x, y or z’”.
That is just not true.
John said: “Many of the emergent church followers don’t know anything about the Bible and it truly is sad.
Ask them to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit, what penal substitution is, and in fact just ask them if they know what the word “ecclesiology” means let alone their views on it.
They are living examples of what we all would be like without being strong in the Word.”
As a pastor of five years of a non-emerging church I can honestly say that you could ask just about anyone I know in the non-emerging church the same questions and they’d be like…”duh? what are you asking?”
Lack of understanding and solid foundation isn’t an “Emerging Church” problem. To say that shows, to me, ignorance of the root of the issues at hand.
Just because a church can’t quote the doctrinal stances of John MacArthur and others like him doesn’t mean they are weak, shallow, ungrounded, lack stability & scriptural knowledge, and are the cause of what is wrong in the American church.
The rub comes because many emerging churches do not prescribe to most fundamental belief systems. It isn’t that they do not love the Bible – most emerging types have a higher view of the Scriptures than any fundamental church I know of.
How John MacArthur interprets the Bible is viewed more highly than the Bible by many.
See, you don’t like that statement and would have angst with it – and that is no different than someone writing a book to say the emerging church is going to wreck havoc on the church in America.
These types of unfounded, blanket presupositions just show me that all you’re really doing is making sure we know that you think the way you play the game is better than the way we do. Big deal.
albert – from what I have read recently, Driscoll is not a popular chap among quite a few of those who are ‘emerging’. I agree with you that not all have shoddy theology – which is why I said about half of my aquaintance
. Unfortunately, those who do have the attitude to truth the article mentions tend to be the ones who are attacking Driscoll.
Tobzilla,
Dr. MacArthur makes a few general statements in the first of many articles and you are ready to pounce. Your presupposition is that fundamentalist = bad. Also your disdain for Dr. MacArthur is well seen in your statement, “How John MacArthur is viewed more highly than the Bible by many”. I would reccomend to you that you read DA Carson’s book “Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church” or get the TMS journal stated above to get a better idea of what he, and other like him are talking about.
You also state, “most emerging types have a higher view of the Scriptures than any fundamental church I know of.” as a blanket statement which sounds odd because it comes right after a statement ” The rub comes because many emerging churches do not prescribe to most fundamental belief systems”. So, these “emerging types” have a lot of zeal for the Word without an understanding of the Word’s “fundamentals”? Sounds like “NIV Proverbs 19:2 It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.” doesn’t it?
I am ministering up in Michigan in an area close to where Mars Hill is (where Rob Bell ministers). I appreciate the passion of Bell, but some of the things that are said in NOOMA and things like “Porn Sunday” really seem to be pushing the limits. I showed a NOOMA video to a college student and did not tell him anything about it. I asked him what he thought and he said, “It was shallow and sappy. What should I have taken from that??”
You can take whatever stance you want on the Emerging Church, but at least try to keep the blanket statements of anyone who is critical of the movement = angry fundamentalist. I am a 33 year old pastor that, like Dr. MacArthur, have many concerns about the Emerging Church as well as the lack of Biblical understanding in “Bible Believing” churches. I pray that the Lord will bless your ministry to your flock.
Tobzilla said – “Lack of understanding and solid foundation isn’t an “Emerging Church” problem. To say that shows, to me, ignorance of the root of the issues at hand.”
Its true that it isn’t confined to just the Emerging church, but if you a Th.D and come out with wrong theology are you better off? Emerging church may have leaders with lots of knowledge, but that knowledge in the area of ecclesiology is flat out wrong – end of story. That’s why they may have good theology elsewhere, but we can see where their weak and wrong theology are having its practical devastating manifestations.
@ Graeme
“It is weak research, bad logic and lazy reasoning to simply pack all emergent leaders into a box and label it: “Don’t take Scripture seriously” or “don’t know what the Bible says on ‘theology x, y or z’”.”
Well, when we’re talking about any movement as a whole (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc) there will always be exceptions, however if you generalize the whole movement it is fair to say that it is characterized by “don’t know what the Bible says on ‘theology x, y or z’” and now replace x,y, and z with ecclesiology, evangelism, and bibliology.
Don’t you see that yes they are right in a lot of places, esp. commendable in their heart for the lost, however like you said it doesn’t matter if you have 3 advanced degrees, if you are wrong than you are wrong end of story. And why is the emerging church wrong – b/c they have three aforementioned doctrine terribly wrong and yes having wrong doctrine is a big problem.
Also, I am also a PK and have gone against the grain against my charismatic background, but it is only commendable b/c now I’m in the truth. If you are proud b/c you have gone against your extremely well learned father, studied the issues yourself and came out with the wrong doctrine you have only come out worse off. It doesn’t matter how much you study if you come out with wrong doctrine, right? I plead with you, talk to your father more.
I’d much rather follow someone who is simply “parroting” the truth than follow someone who has studied the issue and came out the wrong end.
Forget all the rhetoric about what the Emergent Churches teach doctrinally. Just ask a member if they can quote the 10 commandments and you will see they have little understanding of where they stand with God.
To truly fight(pardon the use of modernist terminology) the post-modernist viewpoint we should not try to revert back to the completely modernist or print culture.
According to a book I read, there are 3 major paradigms in most of history so far.
The Oral: the God-us relationship was a personal father-son/daughter relationship, truth was wisdom.
The Print: the God-us relationship was Teacher-student(with a classroom of students, of course), and truth is precepts and completely knowable by any of us with the proper teacher
The Broadcast(or Post-Modern): the God-us relationship is God-(collective us), and truth is not really important just the relationships
the newest paradigm is The digital: the God-us relationship is God-me, truth is not completely understood by any of us.
here is an example:
a man comes up to a series of four people he disagrees with and says,
“blahblah(please insert something) is true!”
the oral would say “I will take it on your authority that what you say is true is.”
the print would say,” No isn’t and I’m not going to fellowship with you until you agree with me!”
the Broadcast would say,” oh, really?” and walk away
the digital would say, ” How interesting, why? you think we could discuss it over lunch since it’s about noon?”
and after that if the statement caught his attention he would be back tomorrow after researching it to discuss it more.
perhaps we should all think about this deep and hard.
Michael
[...] From Pulpit Magazine Introducing the Emerging Church part 1 and part 2 more to follow. If you’re concerned at all about this issue this is an excellent series so far and the comments are good too. [...]
Rick,
What does quoting the 10 commandments have to do with where one stands with God as a Christian saved by Grace.
Why do we need to be able to quote it when we can read it right out of the Bible. To know the bible does not mean that we know God.
We need to stop worshipping the Bible and start worshipping the one who the Bible is about.
Learn from Kierkegaard:
“If I know that twice two is four, this knowledge is in the highest degree impersonal. Once I know it, I know it, and I need not struggle continuously to make it my own. But the truth of religion is not at all like that: it is a truth that must penetrate my own personal existence or it is nothing; and I must struggle to renew it in my life every day. A learned theologian may be in possession of all the so-called truths of rational theology, able to prove & disprove propositions and generally hold his own dialectically with the best; And yet in his heart God may have died or never lived. On the other hand, an illiterate peasant who knows nothing of formal theology, who may not even be able to state accurately the tenets of his creed . . . Nevertheless may succeed in BEING religious. He is in the truth, as we say, and people who know him can recognize this fact from his presence, his bearing, his way of life.”
Doug,
That is a poor example, for unbeknownst, to you are being hypocritical.
What Rick is trying to say is that doctrine/theology which is a fancy term for knowing God and about Him should direct how you live. And this is exactly the point Kierkegaard is saying. The problem isn’t that the theologian is so wrapped in head knowledge its just that none of that knowledge has gone to his heart, which unlike the peasant, the little knowledge he has reached his heart and it manifests.
Please do not take this out of context – the more Biblical Knowledge = Knowledge of God that reaches your heart, the more difference it will make.
It is dangerous to say “worship the one the Bible is about” when you don’t know the Bible very well. And remember if you say that “doctrine is not important” well that IS YOUR DOCTRINE.
Its funny that you say “why do we need to know such and such” esp. when you are telling someone to stick to “salvation by Grace” b/c where did you get such a strange idea? The Bible. Do not quote it yourself, if you don’t want other people to.
Some people seem to equate having a high view of Scripture with “worshipping the Bible.” We are chided for supposed failure to worship “the one who [sic] the Bible is about.”
Pray tell, how is one able to worship God without knowing Him? How can one know God apart from Scripture? It is a fallacy to suppose that one worships and honors God while ignoring God’s chosen method of revealing Himself to us.
John,
Thanks for clearing that up.
John said:” What Rick is trying to say is that doctrine/theology which is a fancy term for knowing God and about Him should direct how you live. And this is exactly the point Kierkegaard is saying. The problem isn’t that the theologian is so wrapped in head knowledge its just that none of that knowledge has gone to his heart, which unlike the peasant, the little knowledge he has reached his heart and it manifests.”
I agree but what I see in the EM are people taking the Word to their heart and living it missionally.
John said: “It is dangerous to say “worship the one the Bible is about” when you don’t know the Bible very well. And remember if you say that “doctrine is not important” well that IS YOUR DOCTRINE.”
Who says that we don’t know what the Bible says? And I never said that doctrine is not important. Although there are those in EM that might say that. My point is that there are a lot of people out there that can quote the Bible and know it well but they are not living it thus the Kierkegaard quote.
I never said that one can not quote the Bible. And I was asking a question not “telling someone to stick to salvation by Grace”.
Could you help me and tell me where in the Bible that Jesus said that he was going to leave us a written text to follow? I can only find where it says that He was going to leave us the Holy Spirit to Guide us.
Respectfully
Hey Doug,
“I agree but what I see in the EM are people taking the Word to their heart and living it missionally.”
That is awesome and the one great thing I like about EM, is the huge focus on evagelism.
But the problem with EM lies with its doctrine of the church or ecclesiology. I urge you to ask yourself what is the Biblical model of the church?
1. Church is a place to gather and and equip BELIEVERS. Not to say we should not bring, nor think about the unsaved, but the primary teaching should be concerning the believers. This was the Biblical model of the early church. This an area of huge contention, to cater the worship and services to “seeker friendly” messages.
2.We’re there to worship ie Believers come to church to worship God, something unbeliever’s cannot do. Once again, sessions afterwards or evangelism should happen at church, but that is to lose focus of the worship and equipping aspects of church.
3. Trust me, God wants to reach out to the lost also, may I agree that the EM is a good logically way of doing it, but is it Biblical?
Here’s a great link with some sermons by an excellent man and if you listen to it all I guarantee it will stimulate your mind:
Scroll down to “Part VII Ecclesiology”
In print:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/emergingchurch.html
“Could you help me and tell me where in the Bible that Jesus said that he was going to leave us a written text to follow? I can only find where it says that He was going to leave us the Holy Spirit to Guide us.”
Doug, this is so so crucial, please do not stop researching this question until you have found the answer!
In a nutshell you are talking about either
John 14:26, when Jesus said, “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” or
John 16:13, when Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
There is a very important distinction to make here, who is Jesus addressing? Is it the church, including me and you? Or only the Apostles?
I know that I don’t remember all things Jesus said do you? No! He is telling the Apostles that their ministry will be authoritative b/c the Spirit will supernaturally guide them. I think you can see from the context and from reasoning that those specific promises were not to us. There are other places where the Bible talks about the Spirit being sealed within us (cf. 2 Corin. 1:22, Ephesians 1:33) but not to make us authoritative witnesses to of Jesus on earth.
As for the text, quickly,
1. That’s how God worked in the past via the Old Testament.
2. We see the that the way the Apostles had their teachings last is through a written format. Well not to say that their oral teachings were not, but we don’t have them we only have text.
3. From J.I. Packer:
The idea of written directives from God himself as a basis for godly living goes back to God’s act of inscribing the Decalogue on stone tablets and then prompting Moses to write his laws and the history of his dealings with his people (Exod. 32:15-16; 34:1, 27-28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9). Digesting and living by this material was always central to true devotion in Israel for both leaders and ordinary people (Josh. 1:7-8; 2 Kings 17:13; 22:8-13; 1 Chron. 22:12-13; Neh. 8; Ps. 119). The principle that all must be governed by the Scriptures, that is, by the Old and New Testaments taken together, is equally basic to Christianity.
Links:
John Piper relatively quick and easy:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2006/1883_Thank_God_for_an_Inspired_Bible/
Comprehensive:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm
More resources – some quick some not so quick
:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bible.html
I hope Doug that you will search the Scriptures and be like the Berean’s and diligently seek the truth.
I often forget how many hours I have poured into these subjects and that it is not fair for me to expect everyone else to have.
Doug, I sincerely hope, as one of my brother’s in Christ that you will seek Him more and I feel that you will be a powerful person God will use if follow His way, and not what we think is good, logically, and effective.
Truly,
-John Park
Oops!
Here are the ecclesiology lectures. You’ll actually see that there a whole series of systematic theology by one time prof. of the New Testament Dr. S. Lewis Johnson who is now with the Lord.
http://www.believerschapeldallas.org/tapes/slj-69_systematic-theology/index.htm
John
A simple chapter and verse from the gospels will do.
Thanks
oops!
I missed your first comment. Sorry! Thanks for being less defensive. I think you gave a very good attempt to answer my question.
John I have studied the scriptures from birth. I am a PK and I have been in full time ministry for about 20 years I have been on the mission field for 14 years. I am working in a very secular country today. My calling is to the lost not to feed Christians who have been sitting on the chruch pew for 20 years with there heads in the bible and are not doing anything they are hearing or studying.
The questions I ask as are the kind of questions the people outside the Church are asking and if we can’t give them a good answer the how can we expect them to come to faith. I believe that Jesus taught us a way to live our lives guided by His Spirit that will let me be a witness to my neighbor.
The reasoning of EM is that people today do not trust systematic teachings so how can we reach them. How did Jesus reach the lost of his day? It wasn’t through systematic teaching it was though telling stories and living among them, forgiving them, loving them. This is what Jesus calls us to do. I agree that there must be discipleship teaching in the Church but it doesn’t mean anything if we don’t put what we learn to practice. This is the heart of EM. To often church is boring it should be a place to be alive and where we all can meet Jesus, His love and grace that is for everybody.
Keep loving people the way Christ did and he will lead them and guide them into the Truth.
Blessings!
Doug,
Jesus systematically taught the disciples through the stories he taught and lived out.Brother that is syetematic theology the way it ought to be done. It is true that there are many who do not live out what they know to be true, and neither do we perfectly.
Every time I get up to preach I pray that the Lord would use it to impact lives. Preaching’s goal is for people to understand the Word and for it to change their lives.
The only way that we can fulfill the “Great Comission” is for us to take the truth to the people and explain it with love, and live it out in our lives. (Matt 28:19-20) We often forget verse 20 in the “Great Comission” which tells the disciples, and us to “teach them to observe all the things that I have commanded you”. How can we do this? By listening to what Christ commanded the apostles to teach. How do we do that? Read & teach the Word (2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
The problem with the EC in America is that often, not always, teaching is disdained and seen as “outmoded”. This is dangerous! Left to ourselves, we don’t just magically stumble onto Christ, we must be told about Him. (Psalm 19) Romans 10:8-21 summarizes this truth quite well. The EC often “shies” away from any type of preaching and reduces commands of the Scripture to optional statements. That is what is so troubling.
I pray that the Lord will bless your mission work. Continue to pray for those of us who labor in secular America as wel
Hayden
Thanks Hayden,
I agree with you and I teach the Word in a way the culture I speak to can understand it. I beleive that is what EC is doing in the PoMo culture they speak to. I do know that they are teaching the Word in their gatherings. Jesus is the center of all they say and do and it is He that is the Word.
Blessings in your ministry!
Wow that’s awesome Doug!
May God bless you in your ministry. Perhaps the EM church you are at is not they “typical” post-modernistic church, but one where the Word is faithfully presented.
I also think that for Evangelism purposes, systematized theological presentations is not
necessarily the way to go, but the straight forward Gospel.
In Him,
-John
John & Doug,
Thanks for the interaction. I just want to point out one thing, when we present the Gospel we are presenting a systematized theology, so the problem isn’t systematics, but staid sytematics.
Hayden
[...] They are currently upto part 6, and MacArthur’s own comments can be currently found in part 1 and part 2, while Phil Johnson is the author of the other posts. I’m sure MacArthur has lots more to say about the ECM, so be sure to check it out! Tags [...]
[...] http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/28/introducing-the-emerging-church-part-1/ [...]
Doug says:
What does quoting the 10 commandments have to do with where one stands with God as a Christian saved by Grace?
Why do we need to be able to quote it when we can read it right out of the Bible? To know the bible does not mean that we know God.
We need to stop worshipping the Bible and start worshipping the one who the Bible is about.
Doug
I can only say that for a PK how can you make those statements? John and a couple others here have answered my statement and your question quite well so I will not go to long with my answer.
If you don’t know what the 10 commandments are Doug ,how can you know your own depravity and give God the glory for saving you by His Grace? The Bible talks about testing our selves and everything (see verses below). How can we do that without the knowledge of what the Bible says (see verses below)?
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil.
Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Romans10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Philippians 1:9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ–to the glory and praise of God.
I would suggest you do a word study on test, examine and knowledge to see how important it is in scripture.
I haven’t finished reading all of the posts here, but I would like to pose a question to all of you.
I hear alot of talk about how emergents don’t know ecclesiology, eschatology, or the meaning of penal substitution. Most evangelicals, or those who claim to be, don’t really understand these concepts either. If you grabbed the average church goer, they would be stumped by these terms. If knowing and understanding these concepts is what determines who is doctrinally sound, I suggest we not only show concern for those in the emergent church, but also those in most evangelical churches.
Jamie,
Anyone that wants to know the full council unfortunately will need to do a lot of study on his or her own (You know, study to show yourself approved) like ecclesiology, eschatology, or the meaning of penal substitution. I have attended 3 churches over the past 24 years and found that 2 of them were not teaching as Paul and the other Apostles tough, so I left them and found a church that teaches doctrine (MEAT). A church or Pastor is called to equip the Saints by teaching them correct doctrine for spreading the Gospel and the defense of it. Unfortunately most people would leave any church that would teach that and probably end up in Emergent Churches that are more interested in programs and filling the needs of the congregation and keep them happy (to fill the pews) as they send them towards hell.
[...] Introducing the ECM (Part 1) [...]
John,
I have looked over some of your writings and noticed that many have misrepresented your views at times… and really it surprises me that you have not taken from that and learned mercy and grace and extended that to someone like Brian McLaren… or myself as I am in the emerging conversation or as you call it the emerging church movement.
Interestingly to me is that you have softened a bit on some of your views (at least some of the charismatic movement) and though being one of that persuasion again, (notably many of my EC friends are Calvinistic in their view which I am not… though I believe in eternal security and free will) as least I see a sliver of hope that the Grace you preach will be extended and practiced.
What I see though is that even as you have been misrepresented at times, you still fall into the trap of labeling all in this so called movement (which in itself is a in house debate as to if it is a movement) as heretics… The funny thing is I read you statement of faith from your won church website and agreed with most of it… outside of that I think the statement of justification could be fleshed out much more… though I understand that it is a statement of faith and not a doctorate thesis.
My concern in all this is that Jesus in John 17:17 called for unity in the faith… which I see and have experience by those in the EC, yet what I see and have experienced from those who follow you is slanderous accusation and lies at to my character and ministry. I am a heretic because I have a “link to Brian McLaren’s websites” is what one of your followerer’s have said to me… and unlike your “zap” story (which was a bit funny as I have never heard that used in my 20 some years in the charismatic movement) I will not assume all that follow your teachings act or behave or are following how you act and behave. In fact I hope you find that many of us in the EC are working hard to address the issues of post-modernity and modernity and are seeking to give an answer in gentleness and respect… (I am sorry as I do not see this on display here on this site). I see that you have some genuine concerns and I too seek that people find a biblical view of truth and one not based on humanist reasoning. I have been attacked by some who claim I do not believe in truth… in fact they (this is a person who follows your teaching btw) that we can come to a saving knowledge without a relationship with Christ Jesus… (Again I do not assume you teach this… and view this person as aberrant, yet he is being herald by some anti-emerging site as an up and comer!)
I hope you can see that while you may have inadvertently found some that have strayed off the path… the bulk have not. In fact I think you miss a very subtle nuance about Brian’s books and that he is not out to give an answer… to even tell one what to believe… but he desires to ask the question to send on back to the Bible and get the answer, from the Holy Spirit leading one in understanding what is written. This is subtle as I have said, and if one has not read books like “More Ready than you Realize” which is about evangelizing in the post-modern matrix one might not “get it”…
I also beseech you to beware that if you are wrong and have mischaracterized Brian in any way shape or form… that you are slandering… and slanderer’s do not inherit the Kingdom of God… and to continue in this… without absolute certainty you are not wrong in any way shape or form is usurping Jesus as the TRUE JUDGE and placing yourself in HIS THRONE of Judgment… I hope that is not true for you.
So, please, consider what you are doing and saying… and I trust that you practice what you preach… and that is Grace to you…
Blessings,
iggy
Tobzilla says,
“As a pastor of five years of a non-emerging church I can honestly say that you could ask just about anyone I know in the non-emerging church the same questions and they’d be like…”duh? what are you asking?”
Tobzilla, who’s fault is that, the people in the pews or the pastors in the pulpit?
[...] Introducing the ECM (Part 1) [...]