It’s already started. Barack Obama is seeming more and more like David Palmer everyday. Not in a bad way (I sincerely hope he gets elected), I’m just saying.
I’ve heard lots of critiques and rants about the emerging church, but this one is one of the more perplexing that I’ve seen. Rebellion against authority? Seriously? That’s really what it all amounts to? That argument just doesn’t seem to work for me. There may be a shred a truth to it–though not in the ways mentioned–but even still, what do you call the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, and the 95 theses? There’s a difference between “rebelling against authority” and speaking prophetic truth to powers and institutions and the way that language is framed is very important. The former is almost always a euphemism used by the institutional status quo to simply dismiss anything or anyone that “questions.” If you want to critique the emerging church then criticize them for being too male and too white. That may be something worth talking about.
Should Christians vote? Here is an interesting argument against voting and here is a counter-argument from the same blog. While, I don’t agree with the assertion that we shouldn’t vote simply because we’ll never have the answer and cannot remain purely prophetic, I don’t find the counter-argument all that compelling. That may not be the main idea here, but at any rate both articles make some good points and both are well worth reading.
Have you heard of “Pensionbook?” Apparently it is Facebook for “old” people. Pretty funny.
“The Four Horsemen,” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel C. Dennett) sit down for a 2 hour, unmoderated conversation about atheism and religion [Part 1 and Part 2]. I haven’t watched all of this yet, but I’m sure it’s well worth a look. I find this very helpful, especially as a professing Christian and while they do make some very good points, I still sense a certain degree of arrogance (not any more than some Christian leaders, but even still I think it’s there). Anyone else feel the same?
~bh ><>
8 responses so far ↓
1 Christopher Sowers // Jan 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Are you historically naive enough to compare the Reformation to what is going on with the emerging church movement? Or, McLaren’s “generous orthodoxy” with the 95 Theses?
What prophetic truth would that be? The non-divinity of Jesus? Universal salvation? Or, do you have in mind some other heresy? Perhaps Open Theism, maybe?
Finally, which institution are you speaking these falsehoods too? The modern Evangelical church? How exactly is that an institution? I think you might want to double-check with Webster on that idea.
Your naivete aside (for I can’t imagine why anyone would make such claims otherwise), you don’t think the emerging church movement should be critiqued because of it’s tolerant attitude toward heresy or for it’s hyper-consumerism or for it’s disregard for the Scriptures or for it’s ignorance of history, as much as it should be for reasons of gender and race?
Tell me, is it not idolatry to take marching orders from ressentiment instead of from God? And, here is a story I think you would find particularly helpful: Num. 16. It’s about a group of people who thought they too had a prophetic voice to speak against “the Man.”
2 blake // Jan 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm
hi christopher. thanks for the comment. i’ll take these one at a time.
Are you historically naive enough to compare the Reformation to what is going on with the emerging church movement? Or, McLaren’s “generous orthodoxy” with the 95 Theses?
i never mentioned mclaren or any of his books so i’m not sure where that came from. my intention was simply to raise the question–what do you (or anyone for that matter) really mean when they dismiss something as “rebelling against authority?” that easy to do, but its not as easy to unpack it. did not the catholic church accuse luther and the reformers of the same thing? was the reformation seen at that time as a rebellion against authority or wasn’t it? be careful how you answer that question.
and just for the record, i do think there is a significant shift/transition taking place and i think emerging church fosters this change to some extent. whether it (the emerging church) last through it all will remain to be seen. i don’t say this because i’m “historically naive” i say it because i’m historically conscious and i’m aware of the socio-cultural shift that is happening.
What prophetic truth would that be? The non-divinity of Jesus? Universal salvation? Or, do you have in mind some other heresy? Perhaps Open Theism, maybe?
i’d be open to discuss any of those things, but that wasn’t what i was talking about and the sheer fact that you arbitrarily raise those issues tells me that you’re more interested in tearing apart straw men and defending the dogma that someone else handed you, but i digress.
so, what prophetic truth? well how about the equitable kingdom of god for starters. how about justice for “the least of these.” how about the dysfunctionality and irrelevance of the church to the world around it. how about the pressing problems that are plaguing our world? do i really need to list those or have you been too preoccupied with your “authority” to notice? the church seems to be more interested with self-perpetuation and infatuation than these things. perhaps we should re-read the gospels.
Finally, which institution are you speaking these falsehoods too? The modern Evangelical church? How exactly is that an institution? I think you might want to double-check with Webster on that idea.
the assertion that the church is not an institution is laughable. and you have the audacity to call someone else historically naive? even the most amateur church historian would tell you that the christian church at large as been an institution since at least the 4th century. that is not debatable.
Your naivete aside (for I can’t imagine why anyone would make such claims otherwise), you don’t think the emerging church movement should be critiqued because of it’s tolerant attitude toward heresy or for it’s hyper-consumerism or for it’s disregard for the Scriptures or for it’s ignorance of history, as much as it should be for reasons of gender and race?
again, like i mentioned with the whole rebellion thing, you can’t just through the word heresy around. wasn’t luther accused of being a heretic? for that matter, wasn’t jesus himself accused of such things? it’s easy for you to throw around charged words like that, but its not as easy when you compare it with what most people would consider to be orthodox.
i completely disagree about hyper-consumerism and ignorance of history. read any emerging church author and i think you’ll see why.
the idea that the emerging church disregards scripture is also comical to me. most of these people have a great amount of respect for the bible and take very seriously. just because they don’t believe it to be literal or completely historically accurate doesn’t mean they disregard it. professional theologians have been doing that for a long time.
Tell me, is it not idolatry to take marching orders from ressentiment instead of from God? And, here is a story I think you would find particularly helpful: Num. 16. It’s about a group of people who thought they too had a prophetic voice to speak against “the Man.”
does god speak to you directly with “marching orders?” that must be nice. come on. everyone takes their “marching orders” from someone or something. a particular denomination or tradition or whatnot. don’t tell me you’re arrogant enough to say you have the direct line and everyone else is severely misguided.
frankly, i don’t care what story from scripture you pull out to proof text your point. because for every story you come up with i can show another story that helps prove my point. that’s the problem with that (if you’re interested you can see my view of scripture here. but, for what it’s worth i do seem to remember some guy in the new testament that thought he had “a prophetic voice to speak against the man.” i seem to remember him being executed, crucified in fact, for speaking out.
3 Aaron Stewart // Jan 11, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Blake just as an FYI don’t waste your time debating with Chris, he’s always right and everyone else is an idiot and wrong if they say otherwise.
4 Christopher Sowers // Jan 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Blake,
Thanks for posting my comment and for taking the time to try and answer my questions. You try to cover a lot of ground in your reply, so I’ll hit as many as your points as I can.
i never mentioned mclaren or any of his books so i’m not sure where that came from. my intention was simply to raise the question–what do you (or anyone for that matter) really mean when they dismiss something as “rebelling against authority?” that easy to do, but its not as easy to unpack it. did not the catholic church accuse luther and the reformers of the same thing? was the reformation seen at that time as a rebellion against authority or wasn’t it? be careful how you answer that question.
and just for the record, i do think there is a significant shift/transition taking place and i think emerging church fosters this change to some extent. whether it (the emerging church) last through it all will remain to be seen. i don’t say this because i’m “historically naive” i say it because i’m historically conscious and i’m aware of the socio-cultural shift that is happening.
On several occasions throughout your reply, you assume that there is a similarity with what emerging church movement is doing with what happened at the time of Reformation. However, at no point do you demonstrate that is the case. Simply because someone says they are doing something similar to Martin Luther doesn’t mean they in fact are doing something similar. (This is obvious to anyone who hasn’t drank the Kool-aid.) And, this is why I brought up McLaren, because he is one who makes such claims.
What is the exact socio-cultural shift that took place at the time of the Reformation and how is it the same as the shift occuring now? If you’re historically conscious (which of course, on this topic, means you are familiar with the work of Ozment, McGrath, Oberman and the rest), I’m sure you will have no problem here. Second, just exactly which of the factors that make up this socio-cultural shift, assuming it is happening and it is the same as the sort that took place 500 hundred years ago, is being created by (”to some extent”) the emerging church?
i’d be open to discuss any of those things, but that wasn’t what i was talking about and the sheer fact that you arbitrarily raise those issues tells me that you’re more interested in tearing apart straw men and defending the dogma that someone else handed you, but i digress.
Since you didn’t define what sort of prophetic truth was being spoken, I tried to guess from a list of doctrines that have been espoused by emerging authors, speakers and pastors. Since you link to many of these apostate people, I assumed the list would get me close. After reading through some of your blog, I figured the list of things “spoken of” or “proclaimed” couldn’t be far from the one a created.
so, what prophetic truth? well how about the equitable kingdom of god for starters. how about justice for “the least of these.” how about the dysfunctionality and irrelevance of the church to the world around it. how about the pressing problems that are plaguing our world? do i really need to list those or have you been too preoccupied with your “authority” to notice? the church seems to be more interested with self-perpetuation and infatuation than these things. perhaps we should re-read the gospels.
You make several assertions here that could use some proof. For example, can you demonstrate this “dysfunctionality” and this “irrelevance”? (I don’t expect you to be able to since you’re assumptions are back to front, e.g. the world then the Kingdom.) Second, what pressing problem plaguing the world is greater than a postlapsarian rebellion? And, why? You say the church is more interested in “self-perpetuation” but you don’t demonstrate it. Can you demonstrate that the church (your broad term, not mine) only concerned with it’s survival? And, what exactly is the church infatuated with?
the assertion that the church is not an institution is laughable. and you have the audacity to call someone else historically naive? even the most amateur church historian would tell you that the christian church at large as been an institution since at least the 4th century. that is not debatable.
Now, here is a queer thing. If you’re not historically naive, then why do you equate the modern evangelical church with the church established in Rome? With the Church universal? I never said the Church isn’t an institution. I simply said that the modern evangelical church isn’t. After all, the emerging church rebellion isn’t against the Church Universal is it?
again, like i mentioned with the whole rebellion thing, you can’t just through the word heresy around. wasn’t luther accused of being a heretic? for that matter, wasn’t jesus himself accused of such things? it’s easy for you to throw around charged words like that, but its not as easy when you compare it with what most people would consider to be orthodox.
You’re right about one thing. It’s not easy for you to throw the word heresy around. However, I’m a part of a confessional and creedal tradition. And, being a part of such a tradition, I’m enabled to use words like heresy, apostasy, and excommunication.
i completely disagree about hyper-consumerism and ignorance of history. read any emerging church author and i think you’ll see why.
I have read a great deal from emerging church authors (e.g. McLaren, Hirsch, McKnight, Sweet, Pagitt, Kimball, etc.) And, I think the charge stands unless you can demonstrate to me that it is otherwise. Is it not ignorance of history to not be aware of the inherited assumptions and priorities you are operating with? When I have pointed out that the emerging church movement is the confused flower-child of the 60s Jesus People Movement and the consumerist ideologies of Jim Bakker, I’m not pulling this stuff out of the air. The reason that emerging guys don’t like it though, I suspect, is because I’m showing off their small clothes. (You would do well to read David Wells excellent series, by the way.)
the idea that the emerging church disregards scripture is also comical to me. most of these people have a great amount of respect for the bible and take very seriously. just because they don’t believe it to be literal or completely historically accurate doesn’t mean they disregard it. professional theologians have been doing that for a long time.
Let’s be clear, here. If a person asserts anything other than the absolute authority, truth, and accuracy of God’s Word, they are disregarding Scripture. Sola et toto Scriptura. If a person denies the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, they are disregarding it. Simply because professional (and in almost all cases apostate) theologians have been doing it for a long time means nothing. I have been eating apples for many years but that is hardly a reason for you to do so. As I attempted to point out to an emerging pastor some time ago, the difference lies in whether one is committed to the material authority of the text (quoad res) which is the traditional and orthodox position. By their dynamic approach to translation and interpretation, emerging authors demonstrate no such commitment.
5 Christopher Sowers // Jan 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Thanks, Aaron, for the wonderful contribution to this conversation!
6 blake // Jan 11, 2008 at 4:56 pm
chris,
just a quick comment as i’m preparing to leave the office.
let me be as clear as possible. i’m not trying to prescriptively compare the emerging church to the reformation. that’s impossible. different culture. different time in history. different context. so forgive me if i do not adequately answer your questions concerning that. i agree with you insofar as you say they are different prescriptively.
the cultural shift we’re painfully undergoing at the moment is from modernity into postmodernity (now, don’t get upset here, i’m not talking about postmodernism, as in the school of thought, which i suspect you would reject, though i believe it to be helpful). the church hasn’t caught up with this yet, it is still stuck in the middle of last century in many respects. in this sense the church is irrelevant and dysfunctional. we’re arguing over dogma and doctrine instead of acting. i take “thy kingdom thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” very seriously. the church at large seems to have forgotten this. when i talk about a transition or a shift within the church this is what i mean. at some point i think we’re going to have a climax and reach a boiling point similar to the diet of worms luther’s theses a movement for the common good (as it originally was) rather than a detached bureaucratic institution that insists on making carbon copies out of everyone.
now, that being said, you never answered my original question and like to get back to that. you’ve asked me to “demonstrate” many things, but you never really answered my original query. let me put it another way. you say the problem with the emerging church is that it is a rebellion against authority. why shouldn’t we question authority? jesus did often and the reformation and the emerging church are similar insofar as they question authority and reject the status quo. why do you embrace one and reject the other? should authority never be rebelled against? again, careful how you answer that.
and well we’re on it, what is this “authority” you speak so highly of? the evangelical church? the bible? if it is the former then you should know that what passes as orthodox in the evangelical church is very, very late arriving in comparison to the whole of church history. if it is the latter then how do you determine what the authority says? what takes precedent?
i never equated the modern evangelical church with the church in rome though they are both part of the church universal as you say. the modern evangelical church is an institution insofar as it is a part of the church universal. furthermore, because of its size, power, influence, and presence in american politics i fail to see how the evangelical church itself is not an institution.
i’m not even going to recognize your comment about theologians with a response. i think it speaks for itself.
it might be good for us to call it quits now simply because of what we’ve both said concerning scripture and ultimately, everything we talk about is going to come back to that. we hold very different views. like i said, see this series of posts to get a handle on where i’m coming from. i don’t believe scripture to be completely historically accurate or literal. it may have a piece of truth but it sure doesn’t have complete absolute, objective, infallible truth. and really, i wouldn’t call your position on scripture traditional or orthodox. it has only emerged (no pun intended) over the last 200 years or so.
7 Christopher Sowers // Jan 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I agree that we see things very differently. And, we could spend a great deal of time talking about those differences and why we think the other guy is wrong. So, you’re probably right to want to discontinue the dialogue. But, before we put this on the shelf, I wanted to briefly talk about a point at which we both seem to be in some agreement.
i take “thy kingdom thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” very seriously. the church at large seems to have forgotten this.
I too take it very seriously. And, I agree that in many parts of the Church this has been overlooked and forgotten. In fact, it is this very part of the prayer that drives many of my conclusions, including one that you would likely find terrible. We need to be much more engaged in how we continue to interact with this bankrupt culture. Anyway, I pleased to see that there is at least some part of Scripture that you take seriously.
8 blake // Jan 11, 2008 at 5:47 pm
i completely agree with your last paragraph. i would add that again, just because i hold some “heretical” views of scripture doesn’t mean i don’t take it very seriously. it shapes me and it forms me. i am who i am because of it.
for what its worth, i appreciate the dialogue and even though i vehemently disagree with you, i still recognize your commitment to god, god’s kingdom and being a faithful disciple of jesus christ.
Leave a Comment