Driscoll on the Emerging Church
I've been trying to find something to help me understand the 'emerging church' in a simple way for quite some time now. This video helped me to at least start getting my head around this complicated concept.A major problem seems to be the terminology - emerging has three differnt strands, and then there is 'emergent' which sounds the same but seems to be the one to be wary of. As Driscoll says: "They tend to be more liberal on such things as substitutionary atonement, authority of scripture, exclusivity of Christ, and original sin...". The other branches seem to be more interested in rethinking the practices of church meetings and evangelism to reach a younger, non-churched generation of society. Thoughts?
P.S this is our 100th post! Hooray!
posted by SamR @ 8:36 am
24 comments
24 Comments:
the problem is when the church is shaped more by culture than the counter-cultural gospel.
the danger (as driscoll says in both his books) is:
Church + Culture - Gospel = Liberalism.
So the danger is that the emerging guys are simply the new liberalism. Rather than accomodating the modernism (the old liberalism) they are shaped by postmodernism.
Rather than accomodating the modernism
What do you mean?
I was rather surprised by the accuracy of the video. I suppose it's because he's actually been involved in the emerging movement. I am, personally, part of the fourth category he mentions - the missional church - where we are essentially starting over. Instead of "how can we redo church?" we are trying to wipe the slate completely clean with questions like "what did Jesus actually say?" and "where do we fit in with that?" I like what he said about the spectrum of the emerging church, that it's a very catch-all phrase (because it is) that has already been distorted into lots of different ideas.
David - I agree, that there is a danger that the church spends more time watching the culture than the gospel. The problem, though, is that we cannot just look to the scriptures for how to behave. They are principles, not rules, and as such, are to shape how we view the culture we live in. We must live and breathe the scriptures, but there is far more to it - inspiration from the holy spirit, our own discernment, prayer, and finally just making decisions about how to behave given what we know about the world we live in.
Something to think about - Jesus was the "new liberalism" back in his day too. Think about it - a guy saying that "you can topple this mountain" (the mountain is referring to the existing religious heirarchy at the time) is not exactly conservative thinking. The danger is not becoming liberal - the danger is allowing ourselves to forget about the balance we must maintain between the scriptures, the culture we live in, and the many other facets of life that get lost in black and white thinking.
Rather than accomodating the modernism
What do you mean?
the word 'the' shouldn't be there.
>the liberalism of the last 50 years was shaped by the MODERN mindset
>the new liberalism is shaped by the POSTMODERN mindset
i don't think Jesus toppling religious heirarchy makes him a liberal
Jesus was the "new liberalism" back in his day too. Think about it - a guy saying that "you can topple this mountain" (the mountain is referring to the existing religious heirarchy at the time) is not exactly conservative thinking.
Well that depends on your definition of liberalism Chris. If you run with David's definition, Jesus can't be a liberal because he has the gospel.
Liberalism, as far as I'm concerned, has more to do with theology, than practice.
I can't play the movie...
try
here, although the words are out of sync on the youtube version.
I am, personally, part of the fourth category
Chris, is your ministry also committed to Reformed theology? Driscoll saw that as pretty crucial in his description...
just a question: how did the emerging movement start and why?
Well, according to the video it came out of some conferences that ran in the 90s addressing the issue of how to reach Generation X.
I honestly have no idea what he means by "reformed" theology. We read scripture and try to figure out what it means based on lots of clues, both within and outside of the bible (historical context and culture, scientific evidence, etc.) I suppose if that's "reformed" then sure, whatever. Definitions are always a hang-up for me, I don't believe anybody's terminology until they've explained every which word to my peculiar satisfaction.
As to the definition of liberalism ... I mostly equate it with thinking outside the box of "traditional" thinking. So somebody who is liberal is willing to say "wait, we haven't done that before, let's try it" ... which usually ends up in places we've tried before, but sometimes they come up with something new. So the whole gay movement, animal rights, vegans ... lots of it has been done before (think Rome), but it's all in a new way this time around; it's all outside the box of the "traditional" thinking of the people that started the countries we live in (I mostly mean America, my home country, but I imagine Australia had a bit of that as well).
I think Driscoll's ideas on the beginning of the emerging movement is a bit foggy and I think it goes a long time before the '90's. I think (personally) that a lot of it started with C.S. Lewis, but it may go back even farther. As he said, it's a response to the emerging postmodernism paradigm, which some scholars put back as far as Nietzsche (I'd buy into that). Either way, missional church (the missional "stream") is really nothing new, it's just going back to the scriptures and putting them back into their cultural context to see what we get, what would've been so obvious to the first century church.
Makes for a fascinating reading.
Wow. Seriously, wow. I've never been told that I left stuff out before, usually people are begging me to shut up and make my comments shorter.
Short thought about "tradition": I think I meant your second, pharasaical definition, not "a bunch of traditions we follow." Having traditions is fine. It's traditionalism (making tradition more important than imitating Christ) that is the problem. When your traditions are more important in your eyes than the people around you or the God you follow, THAT is when tradition becomes a problem. So many churches think change is bad. Don't get me wrong, change for change's sake is also a problem, but often we blind ourselves to the fact that things really aren't running as well as we think they are.
Ok, I want to make something as clear as I can: I agree with nearly everything you said. Jesus IS way bigger than I described, or you described, or anybody described. No argument there. But I think I've sorely mislead you if you think that I meant that the missional church is about being about "relevancy." It is, but not the way that I think you think it is. Allow me to explain.
Jesus was all about being relevant - his ministry is full of examples of this. All of his parables, all of his words, all of his actions reflected a sensitivity to the culture around him rivaled by no one. He pulls exmaples for his teaching from things happening on the very street he's walking down, or from popular images of the day. That's being relevant. So, as a follower of Jesus, I am called to try and speak (and especially, ACT) Jesus' teachings into the lives of those around me in a way they will understand. That's being relevant to the culture.
However, we are also to be relevant to the culture of Jesus as well. So often, we pervert what it's actually saying because we don't understand the many cultural references inside the text. So the missional church, in our attempt to be relevant, we also try to put the scriptures back into Jesus' actual time in order to understand exactly what he's saying. By doing this, we can then start understanding the principles he talks about and apply them to our lives today.
I think that we in the missional church are often MORE likely to recognize that it's up to God to see people saved. I think so many of us were tired of the usual preaching that we are supposed to win converts. We don't win anybody. Basically, to be missional is to live out Christ's teachings re: Ephesians 5. The church we just started ("mimos") is named after the greek word for 'imitate'; we are to imitate Jesus in all aspects of our lives as closely as possible. It is God who then transforms them.
Salvation isn't just about an afterlife, it's about transformation NOW as well. yes, by committing our lives to Christ, we are offered new life upon our death, but we are also offered new life in our lives on Earth. Not the Jerry Falwell sort of new life (the "prosperity" crap), but a life where serving others is more important than serving ourselves. That is salvation as much as freedom from the bondage of sin; they go hand-in-hand.
I loved your comment "Only Christ can cut through barriers ... because He is beyond culture". It's so true! He's above it all, but he's also in the midst of it all. It's because he's above culture that he can speak to ALL cultures. We (humans) can't claim that, which is why we strive to learn the culture's "language", as it were, and speak to them on their own terms, to introduce them to the God of the universe that can transform their lives so much.
There's a book in all this, I'm sure, and I'd like to write it eventually. But to get you started, try reading "Organic Church" by Neil Cole, or "The Shaping of Things to Come" by Al Hirsch and Mike Frost. Good stuff.
The problem, though, is that we cannot just look to the scriptures for how to behave. They are principles, not rules, and as such, are to shape how we view the culture we live in....I just wanted to respond to these comments made by Chris. This seems to me to be a very "liberal" way of taking the scriptures. We must remember that whenever we read the word of God, we sit UNDER it not over it. God's word sets the agenda...not us, our society, background or culture. This is one of the main weaknesses or problems that I see with the emerging church. You're walking a very dangerous line if Scripture is just considered principals rather than commands. As it says in 1John 2:3, love for God is obediance to His commands, whether our culture agrees with them or not...and more often than not, it won't!
Principles ARE commands. They're just more generalized. For example: "thou shalt not murder." (yes, that's from the original hebrew). Fairly straightforward, I think. Don't murder somebody. But it also gives a lot of insight into situations where killing might not be murder. How about when Jesus summed up the ten commandments into two: love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then he said love your neighbor as yourself. Those are principles; they command, but they also guide. They are not "rules" in the sense that rules are situation-specific. Principles are a command that applies everywhere. When I say that we cannot look just to the scriptures for how to behave, I mean that the scriptures are only one way that God speaks to us. His spirit (divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit is still something we talk about, yeah?) teaches and inspires. I can't go to the bible and ask it "God, do I buy a new computer?" The bible is not a rule book; the old testement had rules, but if your'e going to follow one you should follow them all, and I bet you still wear mixed fabrics (which are prohibited in Leviticus and Deuteronomy).
Out of curiosity, why do you equate "liberal" with "bad"? I guess I'm asking what your definition of "liberal" is, because it seems to shape quite a bit of your thinking on this matter.
I also am not saying that we are to put "secular" culture first. I'm saying that we put God first and that he will shape our understanding of culture and how to behave IN that culture. We are to be IN a culture, but not OF that culture. On the one hand, this forms a new culture of its own, a "counter-culture". On the other hand, we have to be careful that our new culture is not simply the opposite of the secular culture. Think about it - there may actually be good things in so-called "secular" cultures; vices are often virtues gone awry.
The point is that you start over from the beginning, ignoring Christian culture and ignoring Secular culture. You ask "how does Jesus ask me to live?" Then you say "ok, what is the culture I live in, and where does it match up to that way of living, and where does it depart? What matters and what doesn't matter? How can I live closely with the secular culture, but still maintain my integrity as a follower of Jesus?"
The thing is to not let the culture drive your behavior: simply NOT doing the stuff the culture wants you to do, however, is still letting it drive you - your motivation must come from God, and sometimes it really does mean doing stuff the culture says is ok (though I don't know how often this is the case).
I love how Rob Bell puts it: as missionaries, we are to be tour guides. Jesus is already in the midst of all cultures, all religions, all people. He's at work, in ways we can and cannot see. Our job is to point him out to the people we live among. Think about Paul's experiences - he was constantly using stuff from the culture, the best example being the "unknown God". The greeks were polytheistic, and just to be safe, they made a temple to a god that they weren't sure existed or not. Paul comes in, says "hey, I know that god, and let me tell you, He's the ONLY God you want to spend your energy on." He used the culture to open doors with its people; he spoke their language.
Just to be clear - there are two different 'Sams' commenting here - SamL and SamR.
Go out for an hour and there are 10 comments to respond to! I'll respond shortly
I think that culture is a concept that helps us understand people. People are a product of the culture they lived in, and scripture, while entirely God-breathed, was written by people, and was also written TO a culture (though it applies to us in every culture as well). The principles that apply to all cultures were delivered inside a cultural context. Jesus came INTO the culture to deliver his message. That is what we as missionaries do, because there IS no such thing as an "unbiased" observer.
So we use culture to understand scripture and we use scripture to understnad culture. You have to start somewhere, but inevitably, the two drive each other.
"honestly, you are preaching to the converted."
You're funny :) I guess I'm hoping there are others reading who aren't so convinced; and it's great that you say it another way, a way I don't, and so hopefully the product of our discussion is just more understanding for more than the two of us. But even if it was just the two of us understanding each other a little better, that'd be good too. :)
Think of the "missional church" as a new framework for understanding stuff we already know but don't often practice.
All of his parables, all of his words, all of his actions reflected a sensitivity to the culture around him rivaled by no one
Parables are 'an earthly story with a heavenly meaning, but that's only half the picture. Jesus spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand.
Jesus tells us in Matthew 13 why he speaks in parables - to fulfil Isaiah's prophecy
"Jesus replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
Jesus tells it to them in a way that they won't understand on their own intelect - they need Jesus to explain it to them! We make a mistake if we say that parables make it easier to understand!
Jesus is not being relevant when he speaks in parables - he's actually speaking judgement on the deaf ears of the people
Hi Chris, this is a fascinating discussion. I admit I've only skimmed over the last 10 or so posts.
I wanted to return to the question of definitions. "Reformed theology" is, broadly speaking, theology that is consistent with the teachings of the Reformer John Calvin. It is most clearly expressed in the Westminster documents, and the 3 Forms of Unity (from the continential Reformed church).
Driscoll sees this theology as a pretty crucial aspect of his approach. If you listen to a lot of his preaching, you will probably begin to notice this.
"Liberal" is an interesting word. It has all sorts of different definitions, and this is why there is some confusion. You ask why people are so down on "liberals".
Well, we tend to label as "liberal" that strand of the church that, since enlightenment times, has undermined historic Christian belief.
So, liberal Christianity denies things such as the inspiration of the bible, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, the reality of hell and other doctrines.
It is also marked by some moral relativism. Liberal christians tend to endorse homosexual relationships, deny traditional gender roles, and tolerate abortion.
All of these are "no compromise" issues for those who are trying to live under Scriptural authority, and hence the tension.
The point is that you start over from the beginning, ignoring Christian culture and ignoring Secular culture. You ask "how does Jesus ask me to live?"
So we use culture to understand scripture and we use scripture to understnad culture.
These two statements seem to flatly contradict each other.
If I put my finger on my problem with your view Chris, it's that on one hand you want to be relevant to secular culture, using it to shape a view of scripture while on the other hand you want to disregard secular culture and just listen to what Jesus says.
I can't see how this can work. There do seem to be some area where soph and I, and you agree, but on scripture, and it's relevancy I think we are divided.
Think of the "missional church" as a new framework for understanding stuff we already know but don't often practice.
It's strange though, I haven't seen anything all that new come out of the emerging/missional church scene.
Saying "People find traditional churches alienating so we need to find new ways of doing it" is not a new message! It has been around at least since the 60s.
And the whole idea of "lets return to the 1st century church" is not new either. Indeed, that was at the essence of the anabaptist movement in 16th century europe, and the idea has regularly resurfaced ever since.
In one sense it is encouraging to have these ideas "rediscovered" by each new generation. But don't look down your nose at more traditional churches - often they were radical in their day!
But I have some real concerns about much of the emerging church movement. Driscoll is a ray of light because he is theologically sound, but much of the rest of it seems to be a smorgasboard of different doctrines, often incompatable.
Everyone emphasises that its a "conversation" - but it seems to be a conversation that never comes to a conclusion. There seems to be some doubt as to whether you can really know anything.
I'm very concerned that preaching is held in such low regard. Many emerging churches have dispensed with the pulpit and everyone just sits around and has a big chat. But God instituted preachers and teachers for our good, and we can't grow as Christians without them.
It is part of a rebellion against authority. Emergents think they are being original by doing that, but they are not. It is a classic post-modern characteristic, so in that sense they have simply been infected by the prevailing culture. And there is nothing radical about that.
Your point about not being able to convert anyone is interesting. For all the talk of being a missional church, there doesn't seem to be a lot of mission going on. From what I've seen, emergents spend a lot of their time arguing for their ideas in mainstream Christian contexts. Their "mission field" is the traditional church, rather than the lost.
And that's why I think the movement is ultimately doomed. If you are not evangelising, you are dying.
SamR: Yeah, disagreement does happen. I don't think we disagree very much, though. I think I may have been unclear about using culture to understand scripture. I'm not referring to modern culture; certainly it shapes our understanding (simply because we live in it), but I'm referring to the culture in which it was written. In this case, to understand new testament scripture, you have to understand the new testement culture. To understand St. Patrick's writings, you have to understand the culture in which he lived (both Ireland and England) and the history behind it. To understand my writing fully, you have to understand the culture I grew up in. We use that understanding of scripture, then, to shape our understanding of the culture in which we LIVE, how we are to approach it, etc. It gets complicated, you have to learn a new language for every culture you encounter.
I like what you said about parables, that's a really good point. I don't think I meant that parables make understanding easier, but that he used them to pique people's interest (using the culture around them) and then, to the ones that would ask, he'd explain ("a footy coach was going on a trip and left the game in the hands of his capable managers ..."). I love that his teaching has so many levels to it; you can take the parable at face value and it says something, but you can also find a TON of things buried within it. But again, often to do ANY of this, you have to understand the culture the parable was written in.
Craigs: I think it's funny that you asked if I'm reformed; I grew up in a Presbyterian church (sort of evangelicalism + calvinism) and have been working with the Wesleyan church as of late. So I guess I personally do tend to draw a bit from reformed theology, but I think it's all worth a listen for the hilights. I've never honestly heard of Driscoll before Soph put up the video, maybe I should look into his stuff more.
In regards to liberalism, I think I see the problem now. In that regard, no, I'm fairly conservative - I consider the bible a historical book (in that it teaches us history that happened) as well as God-inspired. Politically I'm usually a moderate, but some issues I find myself conservative (gender roles, homosexuality, etc) and some I find myself liberal (the environment). Some I don't even see myself on the spectrum (abortion) because nobody else seems to think about the view like I do (or at least hasn't articulated it as I think on it).
Craigs: whoa, good stuff mate. Part of what Driscoll says it that there are MANY heads to the beast of the so-called "emerging church." I agree - so many of them are theologically void, and so many dismiss lots of good stuff from church history, throwing out the baby and the bathwater and then chuck the kitchen sink out for good measure.
I think it depends on how you define "mission" though - I think that "evangelising" and "mission" are different terms. Evangelising is a form of mission, but mission is not a form of evangelising. In order to evangelise with words, action and relationship must come first, something much of the mainstream church neglects to do. Since conversion is up to God (even in evangelical churches we only offer an "invitation"), the discussion begins with action; the postmodern world sees christians as hypocrites, so we must start by NOT being hypocrites, not just for their sake, but primarily for our own and for God.
As you said, none of this is new; in fact, Al Hirsch's new book is called "The Forgotten Way," meaning we knew it, but have lost much of it. I think that so many missionaries forget to learn the culture and instead go charging in yelling about Jesus and accepting his message, when should have becomem part of the community first. It takes a TON more time, but I think it produces better fruit in the end, not to mention more of it.
Funny you should mention that the emerging church's mission field is the rest of the church. A good point, and one we'd all do well to keep in mind. I think though that the people doing it right are the ones talking to both Christians and non-Christians, spending their time serving their local communities as well as teaching ("evangelising", if you like) the christians over whom they have influence.
Post a Comment
<< Home