Emergent Church

The Scandal of American Evangelicalism

/ Dennis Griffith / 6 Comments

I was not there, but I am now wishing I had been, at least for R.C. Sproul Jr.’s address.   The Layman Online reports that Sproul prophetically challenged those gathered for 2012 Ligonier National Conference “… about the true scandal of the evangelical mind.”

Developing his message from 1 Corinthians 1.18-31 Sproul briefly outlined the Christian faith, and emphasized the Unity of those within the faith.  He then contrasted the unity of Believers with the perspective of Christians “by those outside of the room – the Greek, the Gentile…” reminding his hearers that “the story [the Gospel] is a scandal. It is foolishness. It is a stumbling block.”

This is an important reminder.

As Sproul elaborated:  “Paul wasn’t just saying they don’t get it.  Paul says, ‘they don’t get you!’ They think you are foolish … They won’t take you seriously.” And those in the evangelical church perceive this distaste and displeasure.

So we see that the unbelievers around us don’t get us, and don’t appreciate the Gospel.  This should be no surprise. This is as God said it would be.  But here is where what Sproul said really begins to carry weight:

“What scandalizes me is that this truth scandalizes us … that we, who embrace this Gospel that is an offense to the world, are offended that they are offended by us!”

I think this is so true.  Despite the fact that we are told that we will be despised and rejected, we seem surprised.  We don’t like it.

“Evangelicals grouse and complain. They go on television to complain about how they are presented on television. We want to insist that Paul is wrong – and not just Paul, of course. This is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit here … The text says ‘this is how the world will see you.’”

The greater scandal is not that we are “scandalized” by the worlds rejection but how many seem to respond:

“Some Evangelicals not only fight back and argue against it, We insist on our rights and worse of all we begin to adapt. We begin to reshape ourselves and our story. We diminish the stumbling block and, to establish our credibility, we begin to rewrite the story.”

“If we are Emergent… We say it is just our story. You have your narrative. We have our narrative. All God’s children have their narrative … You don’t need to be scandalized. I just have a different story, and I’m not sure about my story. Will you let me into your cool club?”

“If we are Seeker-sensitive, then we take the story and remove the sharp edges of talking about sin and judgment and wrath because people don’t want to hear about that.”

I won’t go into much more detail. Instead let me encourage you to check out the whole story at The Layman Online. They have done an excellent job of chronicling Sproul’s message.  But I do want to share one more of Sproul’s observations, related to the laments listed above about some common responses:

“When we remember the Gospel – when we remember our own salvation – we remember the necessity of resting in His provision. In our sanctification, we are called to have our heart, mind and soul rest in His wisdom.”

And this is also true of our mission.

The primary aim of our mission is to extend the Gospel of the Kingdom. To do this we must faithfully proclaim the rich, deep, truth of the gospel in all it’s dimensions.  Our hope is that this message will impact many, many people.  BUT we must be clear, and we must regularly remind ourselves and one another, that we cannot make the hope of impacting many people the priority over faithful proclamation.

I am afraid many are inverting these priorities.  The measure of success, in such cases, is numbers of people at the expense if gospel fidelity.  So we embrace either the Seeker or Emergent approach Sproul mentioned above, or something of a similar ilk.   But when we are willing to accept a gospel that is not complete, or even necessarily accurate, we then are preaching a different Gospel than the one that is faithful to Christ.  Success may be apparent, but as Paul warned, if anyone is preaching a gospel different from the one the Apostles preached they are “perverting” the gospel. What they are preaching is “no gospel at all”.  (Galatians 1.6-9)

If what is preached is not faithful to Christ, then it follows that the mission cannot be of Christ.  We may want to offer it to him, but it is not his mission. Christ is the King. He dictates the message, the means, and the motive.

So if such mission, mission in the name of Christ but without the genuine message of Christ, is not really mission for Christ, then who is it for?  Us. For our own sense of importance; For our own apparent success in the eyes of those around us;  Perhaps even, we think and hope, so that God will be pleased with us.  But regardless of the motive, such motive for mission is not so much for God’s glory as it is for selfish ambition. (See Philippians 1.17, Philippians 2.3)

What Sproul suggests about our sanctification, that we must “rest in his provision”, must also be applied to our mission ambition. We must rest in his provision of pure gospel and gospel power.

No Need to Reinvent the Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Let me just say it straight, up front: I see no need to reinvent the church. What I do see is the need for God’s People to act more faithfully as Christ’s Church.

I like what Kevin DeYoung has to say in the Introduction to his book, The Good News We Almost Forgot:

No doubt the church in the West has many new things to learn. But for the most part, everything we need to learn is what we’ve already forgotten. The chief theological task now facing the Western church is not to reinvent or to be relevant but to remember. We must remember the old, old, story. We must remember the faith once delivered to the saints. We must remember the truths that spark reformation, revival, and regeneration.

So, again, despite the assertions of the Emergents and Seekers and cutting-edge tweekers, I see no need to reinvent the church. God is still at work, just as he has been at work through the ages.

We would, however, be wise to remember what the Reformers of the 16th Century pointed out:

The Church is constantly in need of reforming itself to become more conformed to Scripture.

To do this we  need to be aware of:

  • What God says in Scripture His Church is to be
  • What God has done through history to build His Church

But while I do not believe we need to reinvent the church, I do believe we must always contextualize the ministry of our congregations to be relevant to the cultures where we live; and to be relevant to any cultures in which we may minister.

Consider what missiologist Lesslie Newbigin observed:

If the gospel is to be understood… if it is to be received as something which communicates the Truth about the real human situation, if it is as we say “to make sense”, it has to be communicated in the language of those to whom it is addressed and it has to be clothed in symbols which are meaningful to them.  Those to whom it is addressed must be able to say: “Yes, I see.”

The desire for Relevance does not necessarily change or minimize the Truths of our Faith.  Instead it is an attempt to express and communicate the historic Biblical Truths in ways that are meaningful and applicable to contemporary and changing contexts.

In other words, we want to embrace and embody the historic Christian faith in ways that are relevant to the culture(s) in which we live & minister.

Just as a missionary going to a foreign country would be expected to adopt the language, dress, and appropriate customs & mannerisms of that culture, so we ought to be sensitive to our culture (and various sub-cultures). We use our freedom in Christ to adjust & adopt appropriate forms that will enable us to speak clearly to the people of the glory of Christ, and of the eternal truth of the gospel.

But while we must be contextual, we must be contextual without negating or neglecting  the foundations laid by our forefathers in the Faith.

This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’   – Jeremiah 6.16

Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.   – Proverbs 22.28

Here are some practical principles:

  • I affirm God has worked through His church throughout history, and that the church is God’s primary mission agency.  Much wisdom has been gained through the ages, and we are wise to learn from those who have come before us.
  • Therefore we must be committed to doing ministry & theology, with intentional continuity with the Historic Christian Faith, under the authority of God’s Word.
  • At the same time, we must seek to be sensitive to our culture and contextualize our ministry accordingly. We must also be careful not to fall into the traps of syncretism or cultural accommodation, or any other practice that compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • Relevance also means that we should be sensitive to specific (sometimes unique) issues facing our contemporary culture(s), and the context in which we live and serve, and to speak prophetically to those issues in accordance with faithful Biblical theology.

In short, we are informed by the past, and we should be connected to our heritage, but we must be a living community of learners, willing to adapt and change in order to be both more faithful to Christ and more effective for the sake of His Kingdom.

And rather than reinventing, and becoming like the Emergents, we can adopt convergence.  Convergence means that we take the best practices and resources of the past and integrate them with contemporary expressions in the context of our community.

This is, in large part, what it means to be Missional. And being missional does not require reinventing, just a little recovering and a little sensitivity and a lot of application.

The Deep Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

At the suggestion of a friend, I recently read Jim Belcher’s Deep Church. I was not disappointed. This is thoughtful and thought-provoking book. 

The subtitle really captures the theme of this book: A Third Way. 

With all the discussions about “how” to do church, and the polemic approaches of the Traditionalists and the Emerging/Emergent, some of us find ourselves caught somewhere in the middle.  I see strengths and weakness in both movements. 

Belcher offers understanding of both worlds. With his understanding he offers honest reflections.  Belchers experience and research are helpful for bringing clarity about the issues of the debate and the players doing the debating.  I especially appreciated his dilineation of the “protests” being offered by the Emergning/Emergents against the practices of traditional church:

  1. Captivity to Enlightenment Rationalism
  2. A Narrow View of Salvation
  3. Belief Before Belonging
  4. Uncontextualized Worship
  5. Ineffective Preaching
  6. Weak Ecclesiology
  7. Tribalism

Honestly, I share these collective frustrations – though I cannot endorse the Emergent solutions.

More than just offering perspective, Belcher offers his thought process as he wrestles with the strengths and weaknesses of both the Emerging/Emergent and Traditionalist arguments.  He does not seem to be trying to convince anyone to embrace his positions, only sharing the insights of his personal and spiritual leadership journey.  I found this helpful. It was almost as if I had someone to talk with about these issues as I contemplate my own positions, questions, and inclinations. 

Most important, at no point does Belcher compromise by seeking the “middle way”.  Instead, listening to both sides of the debate, he searches and wrestles with Scripture to find “A Third Way”. 

The Bereans would be proud.

Emergent & Reformed Coming Together?

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Sometimes listening in to others’ conversation is unavoidable – like when you are standing between two aquaintances at the Kroger’s check out line.  But sometimes eavesdropping is highly informative – especially when a conversation is in print.

Such an informative, though seemingly improbable, dialogue has been taking place at Christianity Today.  Tony Jones, of Emergent Village, and Collin Hansen, of Christianity Today, have been engaging one another about each other’s books, and about the movements they represent: Emergent vs. Young Reformed.

I am familar with Hansen from his work with Christianity Today.  A few years ago I read with great interest his piece, Young, Restless & Reformed.  I was excited to have confirmed what I had been seeing with my eyes – that many, many young adults are hungering to know God, and have found, as I have, the best expressions of theology flow from the hearts and pens of both old and contemporary Calvinistic authors.  Hansen’s article has now blossomed into a book (that I have yet to read).

I am also somewhat familiar with Jones.  He is one of the leading voices of the Emergent movement that is seeming to polarize Evangelicalism.  But while I was familiar with Jones, quite honestly I’ve read only a little of his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders.  But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction – though still not with all his theological premises. 

So it was with that familiarity that I read the 5-Day discussion: Emergent’s New Christians & Young, Restless, Reformed.

I found the discussion refreshing.  It is not just that both articulate varient positons well.  Having read at least some works by both I expected that. It is more the tone. They are both open, honest, and seeking to understand as much as to be understood.  It is the mutually expressed desire for agreement – even though they both know they differ from one another, in some respects even significantly.  I think this is a great example to many of us. It is a good expression of what Francis Schaeffer writes about in The Mark of the Chirstian.  But sadly it is not common enough.

I have been interested in the Emergent movement for several years. Like many others I have some significant concerns with some of the things associated with this movement.  Unlike many of my Reformed friends, however, I have been far less critical.  For one reason, it seems to me that it is very difficult to lump all things Emergent under one umbrella.  Emergents appear almost as diverse as the broad category of Protestant. (Scot McKnight seems to concur. See: Five Streams of the Emerging Church.) A second reason is that some, maybe even many, associated with the Emergents have offered some profoundly important insights that the rest of us would do well to consider.  And finally I have tried to be patient because this movement is still in it’s infancy. As the movement matures I assume so will some of their positions.  Frankly, I would not want to be judged today on the basis of things I said when I was seven years old; or twelve; or eighteen; or even thirty five!  I have to take the immaturity of the movement into consideration whenever I hear or read things that appear off base.

Still, I do have my concerns. The analysis of D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever, or McKnight have real merit. 

But I wonder if something might be happening. In fact, I suspect it is. And this discussion fuels my specualtion.  I wonder if some of the Emergents, in their hunger for authentic experience of Christianity, might begin to see and embrace the truths of historic theology, perhaps particularly those expressed by the Puritans.  While they gets bad PR, Puritan theology was & is radical, profoundly deep, and highly experiential. Those seem to be among the traits that the most sincere of the Emergents are seeking.

The various streams within the Emergent movement will no doubt take some proponents in differing directions as the movement develops.  We won’t know where until the Emergent movement grows up. But I hope Jones’ and Hansen’s discussion may be a beginning of something BIG.  I for one am hoping we may be seeing the beginnings of a river of neo-Puritanism.