The real way to be “missional”

2008 December 2
by zackhensley

I’m making good on my promise to talk about the Emergent church. I’ll go soft for now. At the end of the day I firmly believe the Emergent Church is deceiving millions within the body of Christ. But Their roots are good, it’s where they took the conversations about changing the Faith that they went wrong. C’est la vie…

One thing Emergent and Emerging communities trumpet is the lack of service to our fellow man, lack of taking care of our planet, lack of “social justice” in the Church. They say the church has become more an industry trying to sell tickets to the show, and less a ministry reaching to the community they are within. That each church should be “missional”, meaning that missions isn’t something overseas, but something that takes place on a daily basis within the churches community. On this subject, I agree completely with those in the emergent and emerging church.

We as believers have indeed have become too selfish in our faith. We have more self help groups, “how to get blessings”, “how to be problem free”, “how to have your best life now” groups in the church then we do real outreach programs. To be clear I’m not talking about the once a year clothing donation that your church does. Where I appreciate that, and believe that it’s valuable, I’m talking about sustained daily outreach, sincerely serving those around us with a focused and sustained effort. On this point they are right on.

But I contend the way to fix the problem is much different.

Little known fact about me is I came from an Emerging/ post modern background. Before I moved to Kansas City I used to pass out cigarettes to homeless people on Mill Ave in Tempe. I used to have Beer and Bible night at my house, and tried as hard as possible to make Christianity relevant to the culture around me. My first years in Kansas City and on staff at IHOP, I moved into the inner city. I used to sit out front of a coffee shop called Broadway Café, smoke cigarettes (though not allowed to while on staff at IHOP; and I wouldn’t recommended it) and reason with Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Zionists, and homeless people. I tried to be as relevant to the culture around me as much I could. I tried to help as many people as possible, and preach the gospel to any I came into contact with. I figured surely they wouldn’t hear me unless they thought I was one of them, unless I shed the “right wing” conservative religious stench that they hated about Christianity. So I smoked, cursed a little bit, listened to Beck, Radio Head, and Elliot Smith. I watched indie movies, went to countless art showings and poetry readings, and ate as much pretentiously foreign food as possible. Pretty soon I found myself reading Nietchze and Kurt Cobain journals more than I did my Bible. I found myself less and less in the prayer room at IHOP, and more and more downtown philosophizing about man’s existential crisis.

In the midst of all this I helped as many people as I could. I would hold weekly worship gatherings in Westport (mid-town KC), and would have up to 50 to 70 gathered every Sunday night worshiping. Some homeless people would get saved, sometimes people from the local bars surrounding us would come out and raise a ruckus, maybe curse at us, maybe ask about Jesus. I’d spend what money I had getting those homeless people that did get saved food, groceries, and sometimes arranging places for them to stay, and work. I stuck with some daily trying to help them get off drugs and alcohol. They would get through the shakes and withdrawals; get free from drugs and drinking for about a month before they would fall off the wagon. Once they fell off, I’d faithfully help them back on. Sometimes they’d let me help, sometimes they’d shout at me to leave them alone. Either way I tried to always be available, and always help no matter what, but it got discouraging. It felt like the movie Ground Hog day. I would wake up every day and they would seem to be right back to where they were the week before. A cycle that as hard as I tried, as much time and effort I put into it; I couldn’t get them to break the cycle. I stuck with them for 2 years. Day in day out- nothing changed. Finally in the winter of 2004 I decided to make a change. It wasn’t working.

I did what the Emerging Church is trying to do for 3 years faithfully. But it doesn’t work. No really- I’m saying I tried it… IT Didn’t work!

Here is the problem: When you try to make the church relevant to the culture, you become a follower of the culture; not Christ.

Its right to say the Churches focus has been off, in many cases it has been. In the last 50-60 years, the church has equaled a self help ministry. A way to get friends, make friends, network, help your life and be a better person. In doing so the church (in some cases mind you, not all) is starting to look more like a Tony Robbins/ Zig Ziglar conference then a place of worship and faithfulness to Christ. But to fix the problem should we do so by changing the church model? We would only be doing the same thing, but instead making it more like Bono, less like Robins.

No. the change is in the focus. We change our focus to a life built around Christ. Not only is He upholding all things presently, in him do we find grace to be “Missional”. The fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5 (love, joy peace, patience, kindness, etc) are not actions we aspire to, but are the result (fruit) of a life rooted deep in Christ. We build a history of the First commandment. We love Christ with everything within us, ONLY then can we truly love one another. (John 15; I John 3:23-24) Then we are being Missional. The idea that loving our neighbor is a cool new concept within Emergent circles speaks to me of 2 things:

  1. These people don’t read the Bible
  2. They don’t know Christ.

For if they did they would realize that their “super cool concept” is simply what Christ commands us to do (John 14:12; Matt. 22:37-40) If the church is outside of those things written in the word, then the focus needs to be brought back to Christ, not outside of Christ. In Him we live, move, and have our being. We don’t otherwise have the grace, the unction, the wisdom, the love to be missional. For we are hidden in Him. The change that needs to happen in the church is not one of new doctrine but a going back to the old. Forgetting Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard, McLaren and Bell, and returning to the Gospels and Paul and John. The Church needs to Love Christ, then out of that foundation love those around us.

That’s what the Bible says however To argue outside of that is to argue something outside of Christianity and is therefore irrelevant.

This has been part one- stay tuned for part 2.

Commence comments

49 Responses leave one →
  1. 2008 December 2

    THANK YOU FOR THIS

    i’ve watched emergant theology derail and drive beloved friends into what amounted to apostasy.

    you hit the nail on the head

  2. 2008 December 2

    are you saying ihop is NOT an expression of emerging church?

  3. 2008 December 2

    Yes absolutely not. IHOP is not a cool new church expression.

  4. 2008 December 2

    ok – fair enough. if thats your definition then theres a lot of things we are doing that dont fit it either.

    what about 24/7 prayer movement or is that too cool to be non-emerging?

  5. 2008 December 2

    I agree there are a lot of things that do not fit,

    I think it depends on what you are meaning by Emerging. I realize that I’ve said some pretty black and white things about something that is much more nebulous.

    When I hear Emgering I think (based on the books I’ve read) changing the expression of church for the purpose of making Christianity culturally relevant.

    Making the ecclesial expression reflective of the society around.

    On that basis I do not, and we would not define IHOP as Emerging.

    The vision of IHOP is Luke 18:1-8. Day and Night prayer for Justice and truth until Christ returns to the Earth and finds the sustained faith of the saints because of Fasting and prayer. IHOP is not man defined, but God and Biblically defined.

    It is a change, it is Emerging by definition of the word not by definition of the movement.

    I love the 24/7 prayer movement, Because of Luke 18.

  6. 2008 December 2

    thats totally fair. i was wondering myself and just took a look at the differences between ihop and 24/7 [which i have had a lot to do with and often promote it as one of my favourite movements.

    i found a good page on the ihop website link in which James Williams suggests 24/7 is a little more fluid, not as based on modernism, more open to artistic participation when compared to the more old skool charismatic style – and stronger stage presence – than 24/7

    good food for thought.

    yes – definitions are dependent on our experiences and locations. the book next to me right now is John Crowder’s The New Mystics in which he describes the emerging church as he sees it. He also recommends John Sandford’s book “Healers, Prophets and the Emerging Church” – i am just about to order it and see what he says.

    Crowder also points to the “intimacy perspective” of the IHOP and YWAM combination, which he also pinpoints as an example of what God is doing in this postmodern world.

    “Making the ecclesial expression reflective of the society around. ” – thats a fair critique of emerging-missional churches because they ARE shaped by the society they are reaching. although i have seen some very fundamentalist churches that were structured like a shopping mall and thats missional in a way (for 1979)

    hey – enough waffling. i really like your blog and you have a great way of relating to people. love the honesty – even the gold dust experience which i am sure your more conservative readers would have a problem with.

    i also find myself in meetings like this – even weirder -not so much in usa but more overseas where the supernatural is considered more “normal”. sometimes i dont write the whole story because some of my readers wouldnt understand.

    anyway – peace. btw – my wife was born in kansas city, missouri.

  7. 2008 December 2

    “and stronger stage presence – than 24/7″

    ooopps. i meant to say – “than IHOP”

  8. 2008 December 2

    Thank you for the compliment! Coming from one of the God Father’s of blogging that means a lot.

    I have followed your blog for awhile. It’s also very good.

    Hey if you ever come to visit your wife’s homeland, let me know. I’d love to show you around and chat!

    many blessings

  9. 2008 December 2
    Ryan permalink

    Zach,

    I love where you’re going with this. This is a topic that I am keenly aware of, as my exceedingly conservative church is holding monthly discussions based upon Rob Bell’s Nooma series. I am a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and knowing the history behind the synod, it surprises me that they would present the teachings of an Emergent Movement icon.

    I hope that you’ll also touch upon church history in your analysis of the Emergent Movement. I find it amazing that ancient heresies are re-emerging in this movement – Docetism, Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

    By the way, congratulations on getting married, and double congratulations on the wife with child news. I just got married in June, and it has been one of the greatest blessings the Lord has given me thus far in my life. You, sir, are partaking in that blessing and experiencing another remarkable blessing by being entrusted with a life as a father. It’s all so incredibly exciting!

    Ryan

  10. 2008 December 2

    yes – congrats. and i have to sign off here.

    we havent been to kc since 99 but will look you up next time.

    blessings.

  11. 2008 December 2

    Ryan,

    I graduated from a WELS High School and am a bit shocked to find out that they are showing the Nooma series at one of their churches.

    Im not shocked because of Rob Bell but I am shocked that they are showing something which is outside WELS.

    I grew up Baptist and was always told in school that they (WELS) were not allowed to fellowship with me in any religious activities. Meaning: I could not help with chapel service, sing in the choir etc….

    HA! Thats pretty crazy.

  12. 2008 December 2

    “Before I moved to Kansas City I used to pass out cigarettes to homeless people on Mill Ave in Tempe.”

    Well, I’m sure they miss thee now. Of course, I came because of the mention of Mill — always on the lookout for news — I hope Kansas City has all the trappings of comfort.

    Why the move?

    I must admit I haven’t looked around much yet, but that’s the first thing on my mind unanswered.

  13. 2008 December 2

    How long have you been out at Mill? I know quite a few of the “rats” out there still. I often used to play my guitar out there with some of the kids.

    I’d also always be found at either Zia records or East Side records picking up and dropping off various zine’s and filers.

    Question: Where do you guys hang now that it’s gotten so commercialized? Coffee Plant closed off outdoor seating- which HAS to be a bummer.

    Also, do the Gypsy’s still perform out there ever Friday night? I also remember that being a good show in my day.

    To answer your question, I moved to start working with the current ministry I’m now helping lead. (The International House of Prayer)

    Though Mill wouldn’t be my scene anymore. I gotta say even when Mill was at it’s best (during the late 90’s) The Art district in Kansas City is cooler.

    Although like I said, neither is really my scene anymore, so I’m not hip on their current status.

    Anyway thanks for stopping by! (Even though it had nothing to do with my rather long and focused post!)

  14. 2008 December 2

    I was wondering what your opinion was on Mark Driscoll? He doesn’t associate with the term emergent but calls himself emerging.

    I do agree with you though that rob bell and brian mclaren are dangerous men to the the church. I felt like throwing up after reading their books.

  15. 2008 December 2

    Mark Driscoll is in his own category. Though I’ve heard him saw he isn’t really into being called Emerging anymore.

    I LOVE… I repeat LOOOOVE!!!!! Mark Driscoll.

    I listen to his sermons weekly. Where I’m not on board with everything he says (woman not being in ministry, etc) He is in my top 3 Christian Leaders in our day.

    In fact Mark Break down the Emergent church pretty well here: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/emerging-church

  16. 2008 December 2
    Holland Mathews permalink

    right on Zack. right on.

  17. 2008 December 2

    Hey Zack,

    Love where you’re going here. I just read Piper’s excellent book, The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, which I recommend available free in pdf at http://www.desiringgod.org. I also totally LOVE Mark Driscoll! (which is strange based on his women in ministry view, which I strongly disagree with, but I have a bit of grace for right now because he is calling men to be men in the church)

    Fun stuff.

  18. 2008 December 2

    Good haha because mark driscoll is one of my favorite christian leaders…and I too listen to his sermons every week

  19. 2008 December 2

    Great book Jo!

    Not to make this a Driscoll gush fest, but I LOVE his stuff on calling men to be men in the church. Seriously good.

  20. 2008 December 3

    man oh man, do i really wanna join this convo ben and zach. When i have time i promise you’ll enjoy

  21. 2008 December 3
    marandbry permalink

    Hi Zach,

    I’m finally coming out of my lurker status to comment. I’ve been following your (and a few others) blog ever since I visited IHOP last year- just randomly found via google and some link surfing. Being from LA, I come from a pretty different worldview than the midwest and I try to read blogs from a variety of evangelical perspectives to stretch and challenge myself. And it’s fascinating. I think what comes out of IHOP has a pretty heavy influence on my own local church so I’m personally interested in following what kinds of dialogues transpire there (via blog).

    I don’t really know what it means to identify with the emerging church, since it is more of a “dialogue” than an organized body. If I had to label myself, I would probably identify with “Intervarsity”, though it does seem like Intervarsity has been doing what the emerging movement has set out to do. However, I really do believe that the emerging movement has its own prophetic role within the American church and has given many people a sense of belongingness in this crazy tradition we call Evangelicalism. Like it or not, many urban Evangelicals, especially those from a secular liberal arts background, do not identify with conservative mid-western Christians and actually feel very discouraged with the way the latter has dominated (some say hijacked) the Evangelical identity. And while I definitely don’t speak for the movement, I think its main goal was to start a conversation and to ask questions when only answers were given, not out of a spirit of factionalism. My friends and I probably qualify as technically being part of the “movement “ but we don’t identify with it as if it were an organization and definitely NOT a church (descriptive, not prescriptive). Actually, I vowed to totally disassociate myself from anything emerging after reading Tony Jones’ book but I realized that he helped to pioneer the dialogue and is not really leading anything.

    The thing is, there are many of us out there who are naturally inclined to chill at coffee shops, love indie rock/films/art, partake of non-mainstream food/drink, and read non-Christian intellectual work, etc. That’s how God created us and we need to do a better job of reaching out to those in our own cultural sphere- and I believe the emerging dialogue empowers us to do so. We do not “follow the culture” but rather contribute to and shape it, much like you are an inherent part of conservative mid-western culture. It’s pretty clear to me why you had a difficult time with your “emerging” experience because you tried to follow a culture you were not naturally part of, much like I would probably really struggle living incarnationally in Kansas City. We all operate along our own paradigms and passionately follow Jesus and his word in the cultural spheres we happen to belong to and discard the things of our culture that inhibit us from being Christ-like.

    There is unnecessary vitriol on both sides. Progressive Christians think religious-rights are stupid, Pharisaical, and unable to think critically. Likewise, religious rights think post-modern-minded Christians do not honor Scripture and do not value righteousness. Both are far from the truth. The only things we are really guilty of is our condescension and self-righteous arrogance. I think this is truly despicable to God.

    It is a pretty outrageous to say that those in the “movement” don’t read the bible or know Christ. Like, really? In fact, out of all the “conservative” stuff I’ve read about the movement, that’s probably just about the most hurtful and insulting thing I’ve come across. You can point out ways you do not agree with others, but you can’t assume to know their daily actions or their personal relationships. That presumption right there is what leads progressive Christians to think that conservative ones are unable to think analytically. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard/read, “oh, you voted for Obama, you must not be a real Christian”. It absolutely shocks me that people are able to draw these sorts of conclusions.

    The problem is that people from different worldviews are not actually openly dialoging with one another without surrendering their own biases and judgments. This is what leads to misunderstandings about the Other. It is even scarier when people in positions of influence propagate and reinforce these misunderstandings without really honestly engaging opposing opinions in loving ways. This sort of thing is what breeds things like division, hatred, and even war.

    Anyway, I don’t mean to make this a totally negative comment, especially as my first comment on your blog. I just felt compelled to “come out” because I doubt many people like me are reading your blog. Actually, I chose to follow your blog because it struck me as less dogmatic and uninformed than others I have come across. OK, I need to stop here b/c I’m writing a veritable blog post of my own.

    - mar

    PS- oh, and if you ask most post-modern people who their favorite author is- they will undeniably say NT Wright. I’m not a fan of Bell or McLaren.

  22. 2008 December 3

    @ Tony- Bring it son! plus it’s been awhile since we chatted. I’d welcome!

    @ Mar- Thank you for coming out of lurker closest! (may this be a lesson to all you other lurkers out there.)

    Hey hey hey chill with the name calling!

    I grew up post modern and on the west coast- I hope I haven’t become a full on Mid west conservative yet! I hope not! ;) When I say I tried the Emergent thing, it I don’t mean I faked it, I didn’t know anything else, until I made the change.

    I agree that there doesn’t need to be a rift sections of the body- HOWEVER.

    We have to have SOME boundaries when having dialog about truth or it becomes a completely nebulous conversation.

    I know because I am in and have been in these dialogs for years- like 10. I only ask for one simple boundary= The Bible.

    If scripture isn’t our ultimate Boundary we move from truth to relativism and philosophy.

    I agree that the church models are old and out dated. I mean most churches are still playing huge organs, have art and decor that is outdated, and allow no room for artistic expression.

    BUT

    There is a difference in changing the practice and methodology of the Christian faith in order to contribute to culture- and changing that and the doctrine and beliefs of Christian faith in order to contribute to the culture. That changes the faith, and makes it a new religion.

    The guys changing doctrine (the “Emergent” not “Emerging” are the one I’m talking about)

    These guys particularly: Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, Doug Padgitt, Jim Wallis, Leonard Sweet, Tim Keel, Chris Seay, and guys like them.

    I can’t speak for the individuals but many are be lead astray from the faith because of those men.

    Yes most post modern guys do read NT Wright- I’m 26 years old a pot modern guy- and I love Wright.

    Thank you for your comment and i hope that in the coming months it will be more clear to you who i am, and what I’m trying to say. We have a responsibility as believers to contend for the faith.

  23. 2008 December 3
    Ryan permalink

    @Brent: Which high school did you go to?

    It was an interesting transition to the WELS – there are still a number of things that I disagree with, but, and this is the reason that I am a member of this particular church body, they have the salvation message dead on. Being a former Catholic youth minister and having attended church at numerous denominations in the Milwaukee area, I find that the salvation message is incredibly compromised here in this city. I have yet to find another church body that is preaching law and gospel and Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to salvation.

    The church I belong to is much better about reaching out to the community. We are situated right in the middle of downtown Milwaukee, so there is a diverse group of people attending. If pressed, our pastors would toll the WELS party line, but they are willing to reach out and somewhat bend the rules a bit – case in point, the Nooma series.

    Staying on topic, though, I have found numerous resources regarding Rob Bell on the Apprising Ministries website. I’ve sent the pastor who leads the discussion some of these resources. I love where his heart is at, because he is really trying to reach out to people from all walks and lead them to Christ – and he does an admirable job of framing the Nooma videos correctly, but I am concerned that sacrifices are being made in terms of Biblical truths by using them. If anyone is uncompromising on the salvation message, though, it’s a WELS pastor.

    Zach, I guess I look forward to reading more posts on the Emergent Movement, as it is having an impact, albeit small, in my church community. If there are specific resources out there that you think are particularly good, whether they relate to the the background of the Emergent Movement or provide an analysis of it, it’d be great to see them.

    Blessings,

    Ryan

  24. 2008 December 3

    Ryan

    Yes The book Joanna Talked about is a great one. There are 3 I’d recommend:

    1. The Truth War by John McArthur (a good book, but quite harsh- but wouldn’t expect anything less from for John)
    2. Why We Aren’t Emergent By Two Guys Who Should Be by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung -VERY HELPFUL
    3. The Supremacy of Christ in a Post Modern Era by Various Authors including: John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson, Justin Taylor, and David F. Wells- AN AWESOME BOOK

    Another one that I like, though-don’t-fully-agree-with-but-like. They Like Jesus but Not The Church by Dan Kimball.

    Very helpful perspective from a guy a bit closer to orthodoxy than say Tony Jones.

    You can also do what i did and get it from the horses mouth.

    The New Christians by Tony Jones
    A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren
    Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
    The Lost Message of Jesus by Stephen Chaulke
    A Community Called Atonement by Steve McKnight. (horrible book)
    Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard.

    I read through those in the last couple of weeks, painted the picture for me pretty well.

  25. 2008 December 3
    Erin permalink

    Dallas Willard is part of the Emergent church?

  26. 2008 December 3

    He is for sure a contributor. That book has helped them define their stance for sure.

  27. 2008 December 4
    krisdohse permalink

    Zach this is intense!Isn’t it possible that for alot of Christians the idea of loving your neighbor really is a new concept because in general many churches don’t teach this in a practical way, isn’t it possible that alot of Christians are just now finding out that being a christian is so much more than ensuring a spot in eternity, isn’t alot of the “emergent church” made up of Christians for whom these are new ideas because they have grown up in churches that focus only on appearences and this is the way they are trying to finally be honest with themselves. I think alot of the people in the emergent church aren’t people who don’t read their bibles, I think they’re people who have grown up in the church their whole lives and just recently opened the bible and were surprised at what they saw.

  28. 2008 December 4

    Dohse!

    I would put my self in THAT Category. No The Emergent conversation (it;s leaders) aren’t just looking at the Bible. They are saying “hey there are more ideas then just what the Bible has to offer.”

    My point, and I think I made it clear, is to those who are saying let’s look outside of the church and scripture to define faith.

    Saying to them that to claim to be a Christian, and look outside of scripture to define Faith is to be something else- Not Saved.

  29. 2008 December 4
    marandbry permalink

    Hi Zach-

    The reality is that Christian expression lies on a continuum with the right tending towards Pharisee-ism and the left tending towards relativism- and everyone falls somewhere along that continuum with very, very few striking a good balance. And of course, everyone on any point of that continuum assumes they’ve struck that elusive balance. I’m not sure where I am now, but I know I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum and do not desire to return. You imply that those in the emerging movement do not honor Scripture but you would be surprised to know how many people in that very movement would assume that you do not either. See a pattern? And yet, I have seen very few people from both sides really confront their own assumptions and worldviews.

    It is good for us to throw up the red flags when we see a movement drawing people away from Jesus and the gospel. We’ve seen all sorts of heresies, cults, and sects develop in church history and so it is good to keep new and popular movements under watchful eye. I think the emerging movement has been successful in starting a dialogue and I think it, as an organizational force, will soon peter out- because it basically achieved its main objective- which was NOT to create a new doctrine, especially as it contributes to culture. There were some guys who wanted to, more or less, create a “church” and the overwhelming majority of “emerging types” do not agree with them. It was a suggestion that was dismissed and we all move on.

    I just feel very uncomfortable about the ways some people jump to conclusions based on erroneous assumption. There is a fine line between questioning/challenging a movement and downright misrepresenting them and their beliefs. We all know that when God’s Kingdom come, we will all laugh ourselves silly for how many theological things we will be wrong about. As a result, I think it’s wasted breath and energy on calling out the crazies (people on the other side of ourselves).

    You will be surprised to find that many overseas missionaries really resonate with the emerging movement. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with john mcarthur-loving workers whose worldviews get turned upside-down after engaging in many years of ministry overseas. I find that the people I respect most are those whose beliefs are really difficult to place in a category.

    I’ve actually had this same conversation with those who judge and belittle IHOP. I think there are redeemable elements in both movements as well as elements that honestly strike me as off the mark, which is why I feel very comfortable worshipping in both environments and yet do not choose to identify with or support.

    By the way, you claim that people in the movement are “not saved” based on your critique of their cultural manifestations rather than their doctrinal beliefs– possibly because there are no set doctrinal beliefs of those who adhere to the movement. While I do not agree with some of the questions that have been asked, I would never go as far to say that they are “not saved” or do not know Jesus.

  30. 2008 December 4

    “By the way, you claim that people in the movement are “not saved” based on your critique of their cultural manifestations rather than their doctrinal beliefs– possibly because there are no set doctrinal beliefs of those who adhere to the movement. While I do not agree with some of the questions that have been asked, I would never go as far to say that they are “not saved” or do not know Jesus.”

    I never claim that people are not Saved. I don’t think it’s fair to judge that. Let my blog for the last 3 years testify to that because i never jump to that conclusion.

    However in this case i do.

    Those who I know deny Christ as God, denounce the absoluteness of scripture, and believe in a pluralistic Christianity.

    The Bible is clear, you have to beleive in those to be saved. I have not only have had conversations, and dialog with these folks, they state it in their books.

    Again I’m not jumping to conclusions, that’s from their mouth they believe those things. Therefore I have confidence that they are not saved, and I am working ever the harder to pray, and evangelize to them.

    But pointing out this error is nessesary because many new believers are faltering in their faith. and are being deceived.

    I mean Galatians 1 is pretty clear about those you preach another gospel.

    Also you have to distinguish the 2 terms. You are defending the “Emerging” Movement. Got no real beef with them, though they concern me from time to time.

    I talking about the “Emergent” movement.

    Also when you write such long comments, responding is rather difficult. I don’t have the time to respond to the many points you make.

    But I will say I think you are being to defensive and still not hearing what my post was about.

    blessings to you

  31. 2008 December 4
    krisdohse permalink

    Hey Zach,
    Yeah you have made that clear, for sure. I guess it’s just that the people who introduced Rob Bell and McClaren to me are Bible/Jesus believing Christians. I have yet to come across any stuff by Bell (I haven’t read alot of McClaren) that says other wise. I got the impression he was talking about how to live our faith, not define it; I guess you’ll eventually get to that. I love how you can barely get your feet off the ground with this, I think you hit a nerve.

  32. 2008 December 4
    Greg Comiskey permalink

    Zack, interesting conversation. I wish I had time to contribute more. I’d be interested to hear you go into more specific detail concerning you problem with the doctrinal beliefs emanating from the Emergent movement. You’ve offered a couple generalities about how they compromise the gospel in trying to appeal to culture, etc., but nothing precise. If they deny Christ as God, don’t believe in the absoluteness of Scripture, don’t read their Bibles, and look outside scripture to define faith, give us some freaking examples. For being so critical and damning of the Emergent movement (which I’m not saying is unwarranted), you haven’t, to be honest, shown that you have a complete and nuanced understanding of what Emergent church is about, other than that it’s going to hell in a hand-basket.. Thanks

  33. 2008 December 4

    ‘Ol Dohse- My old roomie (6 years ago- by the way Kris you need to come back and visit) hit the nail on the head. I’m just trying to lay some ground work. I guess I jumped to the damning stuff in the comments to soon.

    patience folks!

    I’ve got a literal mountain of material and research to go through. not to mention 5 years of personal experiance of walking in the movement.

    My point isn’t to damn anyone but say RED FLAG!!

    to be continued

  34. 2008 December 4
    Greg Comiskey permalink

    Fair enough, Zack. I think you raise some very important points, and I’m glad you’re doing this.

  35. 2008 December 4
    marandbry permalink

    Really sorry if I’m coming off as defensive… I honestly don’t feel defensive or emotional at all and am just kind of furiously typing my responses (while multi-tasking) so I apologize if they come off as brusque. I’m a nice little Korean girl in person, honest! ☺ And no expectation for you to respond- I’m just having a hard time following your logic and am trying to make sense out of it. Here’s what I think you’re saying:

    1) The emergent church’s focus on living “missionally” is good
    2) You used to be emerging because you tried to adapt to a different culture and loved/served marginalized people
    3) Those marginalized people did not ultimately change their lives for Christ. Therefore this method of adapting to culture and loving/serving them is wrong
    4) You contend that it is wrong because the focus should not be about adapting to the culture but should be about Christ (no conflict with emergent church)
    5) Loving Jesus ENABLES us to produce fruit and to be missional. One should not focus on the mission alone (no conflict with emergent church)

    Feel free (anyone out there), to correct me if I’m missing something. So, based on the above, one can only assume that your experience was not good because your years of being “emerging” were not grounded in Jesus. This is not an argument for why the emergent church doesn’t read the bible or know Christ.

    However, you go on to critique emergent church doctrine, which has no relation to the aforementioned (per your post). You say that emergent doctrine undermines Scripture, thereby making it a new religion and “deceiving millions”, by: denying Christ’s deity, denouncing Scripture’s absoluteness, and believing that Christianity can be pluralistic. Well, I don’t know who said this, but I think emergents would agree with you. No conflict. Furthermore, the emergent church does not have a doctrine, because again, it is a dialogue.

    Again, I think the emergent/emerging movement resonates with those believers who tend to be more urban, progressive, and educated. It helps us to make sense of the cultural spheres we are in because things like 4 spiritual law and bridge diagram pamphlets do not. Many of our friends are non-christians and would never step inside of a church but we love them and want them to know Jesus, yet this does not mean that we compromise the gospel. Even Paul sought to contextualize the gospel in languages and examples that both his Jewish and Greek listeners could understand (i.e. at Aeropagus). He quoted their philosophy, their literature, and affirmed their worship of an “unknown God” to proclaim the identity of the true God. He met them where they were and tried to build bridges across which they could come to authentic faith in Jesus.

    If there are people out there, whether emergent, charismatic, or fundamentalist, who do not believe in basic biblical truths and wholeheartedly follow Jesus, then yes, they are off their rockers. But those few do not speak for entire communities.

  36. 2008 December 4

    @ Mar-
    I wasn’t Emergent because i tried to adapt. The church I grew up in was postmodern (at least it headed that direction the last couple years I was there with a service called The Gathering) I have lots of friends who are Emergent pastors in California and Phoenix- some of them I followed.
    I’ve read just about every single book out there on Emergent as a follower and now as a skeptic. I used to attend Jacob’s Well here in Kansas City. One of the premier Emergent churches in the nation. AND I was Emerging.

    I’m not talking about this from an outsiders perspective with little information. I’ve talked with Tony Jones. (He wouldn’t speak for The Emergent movement- But I at least know what he individually believes.) I’ve chatted with 20 -30 pastors around the country who are Emergent about their beliefs.

    -If you look above, One of the Fathers of the Emergent church Andrew Jones commented on this post. and said my assessment of the Emergent church was fair. (though I’m sure he would disagree with me- which I would welcome gladly- plus I really like Andrew and Tallskinnykiwi!)

    you said:

    “If there are people out there, whether emergent, charismatic, or fundamentalist, who do not believe in basic biblical truths and wholeheartedly follow Jesus, then yes, they are off their rockers. But those few do not speak for entire communities.”

    Very true, they do not speak for their entire communities.

    MY POINT: The problem with church is not that your intellectual friends can’t relate to church. The problem is that the Church is not walking out the scriptures the way they are called to.

    The transforming power, and grace of Christ doesn’t change in impact because you sit on pillows in a candle lit room, listening to good music while artist paint (what my church used to do) vs. pews while a rusty organ plays.

    The power of the cross is sufficient to transform no matter the setting.

    Sure change the church models- it’ll help get people in the doors. Got no beef with that.

    But we CANNOT diminish power of Christ to change people’s lives and hearts.

    Practice and methodology of faith doesn’t transform the heart. Christ does.

    Christ HAS been lost in the discussion.

  37. 2008 December 4

    Just FYI — The author of “A Community Called Atonement” is Scot McKnight (not Steve McKnight, or Steve Knight, which is me ;-)

    Zack, you wrote, “Those who I know deny Christ as God, denounce the absoluteness of scripture, and believe in a pluralistic Christianity.

    “The Bible is clear, you have to beleive in those to be saved.”

    Would you please share the specific Scripture passages that undergird your soteriology here? And please give specific examples (preferably in context) where Emergent writers have: 1) denied Christ as God; 2) denounced the absoluteness of Scripture (you might want to explain what you mean by “absoluteness” also); and 3) believe in a pluralistic Christianity? (and again, what does that mean?)

    Also, you mentioned that you have “5 years of personal experience of walking in the movement.” I’m really interested in reading more about what your personal experience has been and what has led you to these conclusions (i.e., embracing Piper/Driscoll/Young Reformed movement and rejecting Emergent/emerging Christianity).

    I just want to say that I appreciate healthy, helpful, constructive critique, but I think it’s safe to say that anyone in Emergent could also write at length about the “red flags” in other corners of Christianity (and some of them already have, e.g., McLaren’s “Everything Must Change”).

    I guess I throw up my “red flag” anytime I read someone who says (as you’ve basically said here, in your post and the comments) that their theology is the “right” theology and anyone who disagrees is either a heretic (outside of “orthodoxy”) and/or unsaved.

  38. 2008 December 4

    Fair enough, Zack. I think you raise some very important points, and I’m glad you’re doing this.

  39. 2008 December 4

    Scott, thanks for jumping in. Happy to have you in on the conversation.

    Passages John 8:24 – very clear unless you believe “I Am” Col. 1:15-27; Eph. 1:10; Heb. 1; I John 1:1-3; testify to His deity.

    Believe scripture. I think it is clear through out the New Testament in places like Gal. 1:8. that scripture is important.

    2Tim3:16 all scripture is breathed out by God.

    John 1. Christ who is the living Word and living testimony of God is the Word. To deny scripture, is to deny Him, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit through the Word.

    You then enter into a nebulous, gnostic understanding of God.

    Pluralistic Christianity- quoted Jim Wallis on that one.

    I can give you scripture that other Religions DON’T all lead to Christ. but for I settle with the known ones since that should be a common Christian belief.

    John 3:15; John 4:16 those alone should suffice.

    If you knew me, or read through most of my blog. I have been chastised for years for NOT being absolute enough about my faith. (all be it from the reformed Calvinists out there)

    But there are some absolutes in scripture that cannot be ignored.

    Faith in Christ as God in order to be saved from eternal suffering
    The Physical resurrection of Christ resurrection. (I Cor 15)
    the truthfulness over scripture.
    Christ’s return to the Earth, and God dwelling with man forever (Rev. 21)

    I want to admit that in this comment section I have been a bit too zealous, and have put the cart before the Horse.

    For that I apologize to everyone.

    I am zealous for the revelation of Christ.

    I believe the conversation about culture relevance is fine- but ultimately trite.

    I Cor. 4:20 “For the Kingdom of God does not exist in talk, but in Power”

    In the talk, The Power of the Kingdom has been lost.

    Christ’s saving grace, atoning power, and relentless mercy and love is is how you transform the church and culture in this day.

    Revival comes the the power of the preaching of the gospel.

    The lack in the church isn’t Cultural relevance. It’s people unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Not just in Emergent, but in evangelicalism, Calvinism, Charismatics, Catholics, My own life.

    It’s about the Man sitting on a throne in Heaven who is going to return to the Earth to Restore all things. I live to tell of that testimony.

    You asked for examples. I have examples of others but I honestly do not want to make this convo about denouncing beliefs; though it would be exciting. (Hence the apology)

    But the transforming power of Christ.

    We enter into the Holy place through the veil that was torn by His flesh on the cross and encounter the living God. Community, fellowship, missional, helps, flow from that foundation of relationship with Christ. And you only get their through the atoning work of Christ at the Cross.

    Only about saying the way is already laid out in scripture, we (all of us) are just not walking in it.

    sincere blessings to you sir.

  40. 2008 December 4

    @ Ryan – Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School

    @ Zack – Good post. I have enjoyed reading this.

  41. 2008 December 4
    mar permalink

    Zach, I don’t think this is your intention, but you seem to be mixing up ecclesiology with actual doctrine. I think what you are saying is that you have beef with some doctrinal issues within the emergent church, which I think is a fair assessment and needs to happen. However, you infer that the emergent church’s reliance on things like pillows and artsy-fartsyness is somehow diminishing the power of Christ- again, reinforcing your argument that your beef with the emergent church is in its outwards expression. It sounds like you have a lot more experience and knowledge of the emergent church than I do so I would like to learn from your experience, but it must be based on sound logic. You say that your experience “was Emerging”, and yet you back this up with things you practiced, not believed. I’ll all about having an honest discussion addressing things that have come out of the movement that undermine Christ, but so far, you cite examples of practice and methodology that are not really related to doctrine. I think, at the core of things, we probably agree more than we disagree regarding out stance of the emergent church. I did not know that some of the “leaders” espoused some of those doctrinal things you stated. However, I’m not really convinced that they believe them either. I think this is ultimately one big fat misunderstanding.

  42. 2008 December 4

    Then we are in agreement.
    You are misunderstanding, and i apologizes because I must not be being clear.
    So I’ll try one last time.

    Emerging: Change Practice and Methodology (this I have a discrepancy)

    Emergent: Change Practice, Methodology, Doctrine, and Beliefs. (this I have a beef with)

    Emerging: I don’t care if people change methodology, it doesn’t hurt anything. But it also doesn’t really solve anything. I think the onus needs to be on the preaching of the gospel. Ultimately people are going to come to Christ because of the compulsion of the Father THROUGH the presentation of the gospel.

    Emergent: When you seek to redefine doctrine based on the opinions of people in a setting (they call it Open Source Christianity) Some reffer to it like Wikipedia. Where everyone gets to contribute to the definition of truth. “and in the conversation we find ourselves.”

    McLaren says it this way: “each person brings their various beliefs and opinions about their faith; in that context is God understood. ”

    In THAT context. The problem is that their is no accountability to scripture. and truth, in these circles, becomes what the group wants it to be.

    Quotes:

    Tony Jones says it this way:
    “The Emergent Church is a way for us to figure out how to be Christians in a globalised, pluralized environment. Making the church reflective of the society that is around it.”

    Rob Bell on the Absoluteness of Scripture:
    ““This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true… When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true… the Bible itself is a human product… ”

    Rob smacks of Universalism here: page 149 in Velvet Elvis
    “”So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” All things everywhere. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.”

    If I’m wrong and everyone in the Emergent movement is in line with Scripture and love for Christ.
    Then I only ask my brothers and sisters not to so violently pit themselves against those who also love Christ.

    They accidentally Deify the poor, gays, and other religions and Demonize God fearing Christians, who simply need encouragement to walk out their faith as outlined in the Bible.

    This doesn’t help the grumpy baptist pastor love his fellow man more- just hate you. Which I don’t think is the goal.

  43. 2008 December 5

    Hey Zack,

    I’m not meaning to be contrarian, but I’m Steve Knight (NOT Scot McKnight). I just want to make sure you’re clear about that. You referred to me as “Scott” in your gracious reply, that’s why I’m saying this.

    Thanks,
    Steve K.

  44. 2008 December 5

    back again. just took a read of the comments.

    from my point of view (having seen first hand thousands of “emerging church” leaders and their ministries in dozens of countries – and yes), i would say that its a hugely varied world and its really hard to make general assumptions.

    those that start emerging church congregations in their own denominations are usually well received and they keep with their denominational statements of faith – whether Foursquare, Baptist, Presbyterian, or whatever.

    not sure why Rob Bell keeps getting mentioned here because he says he is not involved in the emerging church and since he has a megachurch of ten thousand that did not emerge but was jump started with a transplant of hundreds of congregants, a lot of us would not recognize Mars Hill as an emerging church.

    steve chalke, also in your book list, has nothing to do with the emerging church – that was a mistake that Carson made and it never really got rectified.

    Scot McKnight attends Willow Creek which is not an emerging church but his writings are well received by many emerging church people.

    Best books i have seen on the subject are Tom Sines The New Conspirators and Gibbs/Bolger’s Emerging Communities.

  45. 2008 December 5

    @ Andrew
    Thank you this is very helpful.
    @ Steve
    Sorry for the mix up- I continually get you two mix up in my mind. not in doctrine but your names.

    blessings all. this has been fun

  46. 2008 December 5

    yeah – much fun. and let me remind you how much i like your blog. i really like the way you respond quickly and take risks. and having over 40 comments on this post means this blog is a player.

    steve knight above me in the comments (who i look forward to meeting personally one day) and myself are both missionaries. steve used to work for billy graham organization but is now with SIM. I was with Operation Mobilization but am now with CMS – Church Mission Society – a 200+ year old missions organization.

    nothing essential cool about that [this post started with the idea of coolness being a key ingredient of the emerging church] in fact some would say its the opposite of cool

    but the “emerging church” as i see it, and others, is basically a missions movement – its what happens when missions comes home from the mission field to the post-christian western homefront.

    a very critical book on the emerging church called Faith Undone, by Roger Oakland, criticizes the emerging church for its ywam influenced “emergent missiology”. YWAM gets slammed in this book for their stance on missions.

    i bring this up because i think roger is correct in saying there is a strong connection between ywam and overseas missions with the emerging church in usa – although i think its a healthy thing and roger thinks the opposite. i also bring it up because IHOP – who you work for – have joined hands with ywam and are implicated in this “emergent missiology” by default. So the way i look at it, you may want to be careful who you point the canon towards because you might find yourself or your organization looking down the barrel.

    must go and send off my kids to a drama production.

    and as i said. i really like this blog and really like you. may you lack nothing as you fulful God’s mission in your life.

  47. 2008 December 5

    I appreciated the link above to the Onething Forum dialogue from a year ago – it was a helpful trip down memory lane. I thought that the comment from James Williams that IHOP was “very conservative” was probably one of the highest compliments one could give us!

    I mean, I really hadn’t caught that the first time through – but it felt good to be labeled “conservative” and “modernist”, though at the time he was gently encouraging us to be less of both. We just get hit so hard the other way, in terms of the perception of being “sloppy” and “loose” with the scriptures that being called “conservative” in our scriptural bent was a breath of fresh air when I went back and read it.

  48. 2008 December 6

    @ Andrew- Thank you again for the compliment and for the advice.

    I’ll have to read Rodger’s book this weekend as I’m kind of flying through information right now.

    Continue to stop by, and I promise to continue to be controversial with as much meekness and humility as possible.

    @Dave -Fo sho’. I agree.

    Even the fact that people in this comment thread call me “mid western conservative” has been a compliment from the usual accusation of being liberal.

  49. 2008 December 7

    An Issue of Christology

    I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    the Maker of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

    Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    born of the virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, dead, and buried;

    He descended into hell.
    The third day He arose again from the dead;

    He ascended into heaven,
    and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father
    Almighty;
    from thence he shall come to judge the quick and
    the dead.

    I believe in the Holy Ghost;
    the holy church;
    the communion of saints;
    the forgiveness of sins;
    the resurrection of the body;
    and the life everlasting.

    Amen.

    My fundamental concerns with the Emergent Doctrine are with its implication upon Christology. I have to ask the following questions and come to some conclusions with the Bible as my plumb line.

    1. Q.What does Biblical “Salvation” look like?
    A. (This is the answer I have come to from the Scriptures) Romans 10:9 “…confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”

    2. Q. What does “Jesus is Lord” actually mean?
    A. That Jesus is YHWH, the image of the invisible God, not just a nice guy, prophet, Jewish-expectation messiah, or moral example.

    If Jesus is God, which is what orthodox Christianity attests to, and is the ONE confession which truly causes us to be “saved” and thus “Christians” at all according to the Bible, then:

    1. The virgin-birth is really important (something very “flexible” within the emergent doctrine)

    2. Jesus [GOD] is the ONLY WAY (an idea challenged as “exclusive” by many emergent leaders)

    Everything else is quite expendable to me. Church needs to change, expressions need to change, missional outreach/in-reach, what-have-you. I don’t care. But what the heck are we “missionally” communicating if it isn’t is essence the Apostle’s Creed? There’s a reason that Paul defended doctrine so adamantly, and that ALL early-church heresy revolved around the divinity of Jesus, whether Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Pelagianism, etc. It seems there truly is nothing new under the sun.

    The question is, what “Jesus” are we “believing” in, and if it doesn’t equate with Scripture, then I have to conclude that Paul himself would question one’s salvation, and Jesus may too say, “I never knew you.”

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS