Introducing the ECM (Part 8)
December 7th, 2006
(By Phil Johnson)
This is the final part of Phil’s seminar transcript from the 2006 Shepherds’ Conference.
Does the ECM have anything right?
What about those “valid points”?
At the beginning I said I think some valid points have been made by people in the “emerging church movement,” and some of you might be thinking everything I’ve said since then makes that compliment ring rather hollow. That’s good, because I didn’t want you to get the idea that if I commended something that has been said by someone in the “emerging church movement,” I’m endorsing the movement.
But in closing, I will say that I do think some of the points that have been made by people in the “emerging church movement” are good and valuable, and worthy of heeding.
For one thing, they are right to reject the professionalism and big-business approach to ministry that has been popularized by most of the influential megachurches.
They are right to point out that millions of American evangelicals live lives of gross hypocrisy and narcissism, ignoring the needs of the poor while indulging themselves with entertainments and luxuries while the church struggles, and many pastors live barely above the poverty level (if that), and our Christian brothers and sisters struggle in many parts of the world because they don’t even have clean water or basic medical care. We have the resources, and yet we are too prone to spend them on ourselves. I often think American evangelicals will have a lot to answer for when we are called to give account for our stewardship.
They are right when they complain about the way the evangelical movement has sold its birthright for a mess of Republican Party porridge. I obviously don’t agree with those who think a commitment to left-wing politics would be the right remedy. But I do think the evangelical movement should cut its ties with all political parties, get out of party politics completely,and get back to the business of preaching the gospel.
And they are right when they suggest we have not done enough to reach the outcasts and counter-cultural people in our society. I think their approach to reaching those segments of society is all wrong and largely counterproductive, but to adapt a phrase from D. L. Moody: I like the way some of them are trying to reach those people a lot better than I like the way many evangelicals simply ignore the task of evangelism.
Let me say that we can and should heed all those things without buying into the agenda of the “emerging church movement”—and certainly without abandoning the task of preaching the gospel with clarity and conviction. I hope we can take that challenge to heart, and minister accordingly, and look to Christ as the only true and trustworthy pattern for church ministry.
It’s not really that complex an issue, when you see it in that light.
Indeed the American Church should be non-political in every way but at the same time follow Christ in the help of the poor, wherever they are found - in this country or others. Obviously this should be voluntary instead of a forced benevolence but the Evangelical Church has so strongly reacted against the Democratic Party on other social/moral concerns, that we close our eyes to those in need altogether. I would also risk saying the neo-conservative foreign policy philosophy is immoral at its core, needing Christians to boldly step forward and challenge it. Both issues unfortunately have been swallowed into partisan political issues unfortunately. Believers should consider themselves Citizens of God’s Kingdom and not Democrate or Republican, while able to critic social or moral wrongs. It seems to me the ECM has not really landed on any of these social concerns nor can they, in their commitment to relativity. The Village talks but it takes them nowhere; but unfortunately the rest of us mostly do the same - may be for a different reason.
Masterful, Phil. Thanks so much for your good work on this topic. We do need to listen to the criticisms. The emergents have issued a great challenge to get rid of the tacky Christianity of the last 30 to 40 years.
At the same time, though, their alternative is too often a word game of avoidance. In extreme cases, like McLaren’s, such posing needs to be challenged in the strongest terms. You’ve done that here, and I hope this entry will find a wide readership, especially among those in positions of influence over young Christians.
Thanks for the great series.
I agree that the ECM has some valid points, and indeed may help influence the church to return to biblical Christianity in some areas.
However, the strengths of the ECM did not originate with the ECM, nor can they be claimed by them.
Men like David Wells, MacArthur, etc. have been crying out in the wilderness for years for the church to return to biblical thinking and practice.
In our attempts to be gracious to the ECM (as we should), let us not give too much credit where it should be assigned to others. The dangers of the ECM far outweigh the benefits, as Phil has rightfully noted.
“valid points” would be the biggest understatement.
Phil, as much as you speak of the pros of the EC movement, you speak of it in a way that does not address it nearly fair enough. Which to me says that you and everyone else who is in agreement with your redundant rhetoric are not considering the strengths AT ALL nor does anyone here take serious considerations of it.
It’s only in the last short while that I have even been aware of this movement so I thank you for this series. Between these posts and a recent work posted over at Stand to Reason I think I am starting to understand it a bit better - specifically, the dangers being introduced of denying absolute truth (or the ability to satisfactorily understand it) and the weakening of the authority of scriptures.
That said, it has been interesting to see that 2 pastor/authors who’s works have impacted & challenged me (in good ways) are included under this umbrella (specifically Erwin McManus & Eric Sandras). Noticeably, I am not aware of anything doctrinally unsound in these men’s writings but their focus on authenticity and living a genuine life before God and men has been valuable to me.
I guess what I still find confusing is that the Emerging/Emergent label seems to be so fuzzily defined. I don’t even really know that a teacher self-identifying with this label is an indicator of how orthodox (or not) their teaching will be.
Then again, maybe I’m just plain confused
This has helped me to see more clearly what the Emergent Church movement is all about. I see both the good and the bad. I don’t think the emergent church movement will dissapear anytime soon. There are already emergent type churches that have existed for more than 10 years and are continuing to grow and make an impact for the kingdom not just locally but also globally. While avoiding the liberal emergents I am thankful for people like Mark Driscoll and Erwin McManus and other pastors or leaders who are not as well known as Brian McLaren.
It’s too bad the “agenda” presented here on the part of the ECM is so badly caricatured. It does a disservice to those who look to you guys for information, foments misunderstanding between EMC and EVs, and makes the discussion so much “shadow-boxing” — Johnson and MacArthur are boxing an opponent that isn’t there.
Having been in and around this movement, and in churches that are participating, this just doesn’t correspond to the reality I’ve seen over the past few years. The movement isn’t an easy one to get a handle on, I’ll grant. It’s quite diverse (and thus quite easy for Johnson or other critics to cherry-pick), but an earnest effort at listening and appreciating what is being advanced in the ECM will be a very health growth catalyst for the evangelical community.
With respect to the ideas Johnson wants to accept from the ECM, I’m gratified to see it. But I note that it’s the people in the pews, not the pulpit that get blamed in this post. That may be the case — it certainly is in part — but one of the observations of many emergent-types I’ve talked with and churches I’ve been in is that these problems are natural consequences of the approach to the faith and the Bible that Johnson, MacArthur and others in their community promote.
Or, it seems disingenuous to note that evangelicals are inadequately oriented around social gospel issues when you’ve been inadequately concerned with social gospel issues from the pulpit.
Anyway, that’s my reaction to the “wrap up” here. Here’s to hoping that it develops into a more responsible representation of ECM, so that a more productive and informative discussion can be had going forward.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
What charicatures did Phil present? Was Phil not careful to present EM?
Hayden
“They are right to reject the professionalism . . . approach to ministry that has been popularized by most of the influential megachurches.”
I have just a few comments about this section, especially that word, “professionalism.” Look at the root, “profession,” and you see an indicator that the professional status of doctors, lawyers, and the like is actually modeled after the “professionalism” of the early priests of Christendom.
Look at careers which have truly “professional” status. First, each profession is self-governing in that it regulates the training of its members without outside interference. Second, and most important, only members certified by the profession are allowed to practice. Groups of not-yet-professional specialists struggle to achieve the legal sanctions necessary to have truly professional status.
These legal sanctions mean that you can go to jail for practicing medicine without a license, practicing law without a license, impersonating a police officer. A school district is in noncompliance if they hire non-certificated teachers. When true professional status exists, then ONLY THE PROFESSIONAL CAN SUPPLY THE SERVICES. Providing professional services is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the professional.
If your church reserves any ministry to ordained clergy, then your professional ministers have the exclusive right to perform those services. The most universal right claimed by most denominations is officiating at communion. When the sacrament of communion was virtually essential for salvation, then a lot of ecclesiastical power was concentrated in the parish priest.
Can you invoke the rule of law for the enforcement of your denominational professionalism? You may not be able to call the police. But what would you do if a group of laypeople had communion in a home Bible study? You can invoke your Rule of Discipline or whatever you call it, but where in the Bible does it say that only an ordained minister can serve communion? Nowhere. So much your claim to follow the Bible in everything.
I mean, if reserving the exclusive right to administer the sacraments worked in the early Catholic church to bolster the church’s authority over people, then it’ll work for us, too.
Similar arguments could be made regarding the requirement for “professional training” for ordination. Remember the impression that “ordinary, unlearned men” made on the authorities. But God forbid we should be embarrassed by some green kid fresh out of Bible college.
One last word regarding “professionalism.” I believe Phil was referring to the polished nature of worship services. If we distance ourselves from this “polished professionalism” by only applying it to a terrific praise band with flawlessly sequed sets, to sparkling multi-media presentations and the like, then we are effectively sparing ourselves.
If, on the other hand, we realize that our successful multi-age choirs, wonderful soloists, and our doctrinally sound, well-illustrated expository sermons are just as professionally polished as the mega-church services from which we would like to comfortably distance ourselves, then you may be onto something.
Question: Is God calling YOU to be in a house church?
Phil,
Being from an Emerging church planter, and in the center of the “postmodern” Universe, Seattle, I had to comment. I think at least your last post attempted to be fair with the movement, but most of what you said is a bit off. First, it is impossible for someone to analyze a movement from reading books on it or watching videos. I am amazed how Mclaren Emergent is somehow the representative of the majority of Emerging churches today. People in the movement wouldn’t say that, so why do people who are reading about the movement saying that. That is like saying all Evangelists follow Billy Graham’s style and techniques because he is the most popular. I am part of a large network of Emerging church guys that are Reformed, Calvinistic, liturgical, theologically conservative people and we represent a major portion of those in this movement.
Second, you got confused on your movements at times. Much of what you described as Emerging was 90’s seeker sensitive which is exactly what Emerging churches have reacted to and are against. You give the impression that most Emerging churches are trying hard to cater to what they think people in the audience will want. That is seeker sensitive philosophy. Emerging church guys usually don’t care what the people overall want. Rick Warren did surveys, we tend to be more individualistic and radical. We are seeker-insensitive. This democratic cater-truth to the masses approach is exactly what many of us reacted against. We start with what we believe, how we want to communicate it, then do it. You would be shocked to see how much more church discipline and accountability goes on in Emerging churches simply because we are fed up with pretending. Many Emerging guys hate CCM music, Christian cheese marketing, or anything that is fake about the 90’s megachurch movement. We do see value in redeeming neutral things in our culture such as art, film, or music as a communication medium for the gospel. We are not slaves to any particular methods or art forms. Neither to we create and anti-cultural church as some churches often do.
Finally, postmodernity as an overall philosophy is over. It was a quick phase, that started going out by the time it began. However, the Emerging church is growing and getting stronger. It is not based on an attempt to be postmodern. It is an attempt to communicate the gospel to those whose biases, philosophies, or presuppositions inherantly blind them to truth. It starts with the premise we do not live in a Christian nation. We are as godless as any other nation, only we play religion. Sometimes people’s eyes are blinded by their postmodern philosophy, and sometimes they are blinded by their extreme modernistic fundamentalist world view. Both are philosophies and neither are correct. The method to reach both is the same. Understand where the person is coming from and attempt to break down the flaws in their philosophy in order to bring them to the truth of Jesus Christ.
“The method to reach both is the same. Understand where the person is coming from and attempt to break down the flaws in their philosophy in order to bring them to the truth of Jesus Christ.”
Didn’t Paul say that “it was the law that was the schoolmaster that brought him to Christ? ” That’s how you “break down the flaws in their philosophy in order to bring them to Christ.
“For I had not known sin but by the law” ,
“The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul.”
Eddie,
Paul also said, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”
If the gospel is simply one form of communication that is to be understood by all, then why would Paul have to “become a Jew” or “become like one not having the law” to win them to Christ. Why does he adjust his approach? Why is your Bible in English instead of Hebrew? Why do our churches use American music styles instead of Indian styles?
I agree the law is that which reveals a person’s sin, but if you tell someone the story of the gospel in English, when they only speak Spanish, you can feel you have done your duty but they didn’t understand a thing you said.
The Emerging discussion is a deconstruction of an American Church system that has been communicating the gospel in Christianese language to people who don’t speak Christian. America is a mission field, as local missionaries our duty is to understand our culture, and communicate the gospel affectively.
[…] Introducing the ECM (Part 8 ) […]
Brian,
Paul may have “adusted his approach”, but he didn’t change the message. Just because I go downtown open air preaching to the homeless and poor, does that mean I actaully “become” one? If I preach the goespel to Italians and I speak it in their language,eat their food, etc… does that mean I have actually become one, No, I became like them in their language, but my message stayed the same. Granted, my location has changed, and my language might change but the message still remains the same. “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” “No fornicators, idolaters,adulterers,effeminate,abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, covetous, drunkards,revilers,extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” But the good news is, that “The narrow gate is wide enough for the chief of all sinners.”
I agree, America is a mission field, and yes, lets communitcate the gospel effectively. But to say we have to understand our culture and alter that message,(which it seems like some are saying) so that they’ll like us and myabe “accept” Jesus is wrong. Did Jesus have to understand his culture to communicate the words of John 3:3. “Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
I just want to say thanks for responding.I appreciate the fact that we can talk about these issues and not be unkind.
Eddie
Eddie,
The difficulty is that on paper we absolutely agree. I think you are attacking a straw man. I clearly believe in clear truth of a clear gospel. Let’s start with one simply word you mentioned. You say we should tell people to “repent”. That is a Christian term. What does that mean to people who haven’t even heard of Abraham before (such as the case of some in my church). Explain in common language what that is. Does it mean to say “I’m sorry”? Is it series of actions one must do to show you feel bad? Is it a code word, that whoever says, “I repent” automatically becomes a Christian. Have you repented when you sign a check box on a card that says you have? Then, once someone has “repented” what does their life now look like? John the Baptist had really long hair, dressed like the Hippy Essene he was, and ate bugs. Is that what a repentant person in this culture looks like? So to walk out in the street and yell, “Repent” means nothing if it isn’t understood and contextualized for the day to day Corinthian. America is quickly becoming Christian ignorant and the old methods are not working any more. I read a statistic that showed that the American Buster generation was 80 percent Christian and each generation gets worst. It is predicted that only 4 percent of Gen Y will be believers.
Here is the heart of the problem with much of Christianity today is that most Christians only know how to live and talk with other Christians.
Denis, regarding Erwin McManus, we encourage you to do a little research..Please look at his websites..Where is Christ, the gospel, the word of God. Why has he chosen to use those “elements” and do you know the origens of those elements? He is one of the top ECM leaders…Look at the circles he runs in…
http://theoriginsproject.org/
Check out his church Mosaic, his origens project, all this ethos stuff…Again, where is Christ, and His gospel and His Word?