dangers of the emerging church

Well, the "shift" has hit the fan.

(hear Driscoll's comments about McClaren's new group Deep Shift).

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

Okay, I have wasted a lot of words and time below, and they pretty much reveal my own arrogance about "understanding" God and big theological concepts . . . what's the bottom-line: Pursue Jesus, not men. Which is Driscoll's ultimate point as well. So you may be better off stopping and reading your Bible to hear what Jesus is saying to you with the time you would have spent reading what I have written . . . seriously . . . stop . . . should you spend some time with Jesus right now . . . As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice,do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." - Hebrews 3:15 . . . take time to listen to Him before you even think about listening to me . . .

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

At the recent Southern Baptist Theological Seminary conference, Convergent, Mark Driscoll unloaded on the emerging church, at least part of it (hear it for yourself, you can skip the 16 minute intro).

I have been a reluctant fan of the emerging church, enjoying Dan Kimball, worried about Brian McClaren, and wanting to agree with Rob Bell. Driscoll did a pretty good job of laying out the dangers of certain streams of the emerging church. Although his style is not to my liking, so if you can be patient with some of his rhetoric and flaunting of his theological vocabulary, you will learn a lot about the trendy authors and artists people flock to . . . worship . . . listen to in cultural Christianity.

Driscoll breaks the emerging church into three streams:

RELEVANTS: Cool church crowd. Evangelical theology, innovative methodology. Examples: Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, & John Burke.

REVISIONISTS: Emergent Village (McClaren) and Bell. Genesis 3 - SIN = error and falling came through a conversation. Emergent has portrayed itself as a conversation on what God has said - "Did God mean what He said?" When God speaks, we are not to converse but to OBEY.

RELEVANT REFORMED: Contextual, confessional, evangelical New Reformed Calvinists. Examples: Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Acts 29 Network, CJ Mahaney, & Joshua Harris. Return to expositional Bible teaching that is theologically motivated and Jesus-centered.

I agree with Driscoll's concerns about who McClaren "talks" with and endorses. He, at best, misleads Christians into theological and philosophical waters which they are too deep for and does little to equip them for their swim (see Ephesians 4:11-15).

In principal I agree with his concerns about the emerging church's stance on homosexuality (which is often unspoken). However, in Driscoll's rant he clear example of why the emerging church is careful with their words. Driscoll is quick to lump the sin of homosexuality with those who have active sex outside heterosexual marriage, but does not put them in the same room as those who struggle with lust. This kind of careless discussion about homosexuality is what makes Christians into hypocrites to those outside the church.

Driscoll critiques Rob Bell's use of rabbinical tradition as suspect since rabbinical tradition does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (personal note: I discovered recently most of what we know about rabbinical tradition is from the AD 100's, more than 70 years after Jesus). It's definitely not the cleanest approach to scripture, but Bell clearly sites his sources and encourages his readers to do their own investigation. Also, I wonder how well sited Driscoll's use of how Western Philosophy affects his interpretation of scriptural texts (much of current theology has been developed based on the philosophical views and approaches of the Greeks).

Driscoll also calls into question Bell's "trajectory hermeneutic" and sites Bell's support of Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (see my comments on this book in a previous post). Driscoll's weakness here is that he believes this hermeneutic (which is actually called a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" in the book) specifically does NOT lead to an endorsement of homosexuality (as explained in the book) like he claims. Not sure if Driscoll has any other concerns about this approach to interpreting scripture, but I recognize that any interpretation of scripture must be very carefully considered and critiqued.

Another major concern of Driscoll, which I share with him, about Bell is his trampoline analogy about theology (in other words theology needs to be flexible) and the example of the importance of the virgin birth. In Velvet Elvis, Bell, hypothetically, considers the translation of "virgin" in Isaiah as "young girl" (which is possible) and wonders if it changes anything about how early Christians viewed Jesus' conception. Driscoll misguidedly, but correctly, points out that the virgin birth was a HUGE part of the early church and goes to the heart of the integrity of the scriptures. Where he goes wrong is saying would we believe the word of a "lying whore" if Mary lied about Jesus' conception. How many whores does God use in the Bible to bring glory to his name? How many liars, thieves, drunkards, and more bring glory to God by proclaiming the truth?

Driscoll's bottom line is we need to return to Jesus and not get so caught up in current trends, culture, and celebrity hype . . . which leads me to wonder about my time writing this and whether I should have been pursuing something else . . . perhaps this will be helpful to some who have not considered the wider implications of those beautifully made NOOMA videos.

Either way, I hope you spend some time with Jesus now before moving on to something else so that you will take him with you:

I have set the LORD always before me;
because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. - Psalm 16:8