A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church

Bladestunner316 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-12-2006, 03:23 AM

This is an article recently published by Mark Driscoll pastor of MarsHill. I've started reading it and dont knwo what to make of it. Input here would be nice.

blade

bradofshaw · #2 (**permalink**) 04-12-2006, 01:54 PM

It's interesting to me that the first topic of debate is about the inerency, inspiration, etc. of scripture. Unless emergents or anybody make up their mind about what religion they want to practice, I see no good way to dialogue with them. (apart from having the debate about scripture) That first question is going to settle the rest eventually. However I get the sense that they don't like the easy answer that the Bible speaks authoritatively to all the questions of contemporary culture that follow the first question.

There also seems to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the outward nature of the church, and the existence of the church for the sake of the church existing.

Puddleglum · #3 (**permalink**) 04-12-2006, 05:03 PM

I think it's a pretty fair assessment, at least from what I've seen . . . there seems to be some good things about the emergent/emerging movement - the desire to be "missional", specifically. But it's difficult, especially when you're trying to interact with a postmodern culture where everyone is right and there are no absolutes, to forget that we know THE Story and that there is Truth.
I don't think that what they are doing is really that new. The Church has always been called to reflect Christ at all times, to all people - though sometimes that gets forgotten. If they can remind the church of this, good!
But I agree with Driscoll that there is a danger, at least in some parts, of trying to re-invent every theological wheel.
Personally, I've not been to those churches . . . I have visited a local church which did fit in the more conservative end - it seemed to me that it was a lot of picking and choosing whatever you liked . . . you like kneeling, great, we'll kneel in the service, you like formal liturgy, great we'll do that, you like guitars and keyboards and modern worship, great we'll do that too. There also seemed to be an over-emphasis on being relevent - a main focus on the sermon was how Jesus is harsher than we think, and we need to be tough to be disciples, or something like that (I'm going off of my memory, not my notes). So I wasn't exactly impressed (it was a local PCA, btw).

BronxBriar · #4 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 08:15 AM

Brothers and Sisters,

Some emergent churches I am aware of in the NYC area are actually "home churches" who function quite well without a professioanlly ordained clergyman or pastor.

Forgive my biblical ignorance, but is an "ordained" minister a biblical requirement for leading a group of Christian believers? In this case, by "ordained" I mean professionally trained, someone who has jumped through the seminary hoops and got that sheepskin.

Is it not possible for one to hear the call to ministry and indeed just go minister? Wouldn't his "ordination" consist in the acceptance by the community to which he ministers? Isn't that enough? Or am I missing a scriptural requirement?

-Peace.

[Edited on 4-13-2006 by BronxBriar]

BronxBriar · #5 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bradofshaw
It's interesting to me that the first topic of debate is about the inerency, inspiration, etc. of scripture. Unless emergents or anybody make up their mind about what religion they want to practice, I see no good way to dialogue with them. (apart from having the debate about scripture) That first question is going to settle the rest eventually. However I get the sense that they don't like the easy answer that the Bible speaks authoritatively to all the questions of contemporary culture that follow the first question.

There also seems to be an unhealthy preoccupation with the outward nature of the church, and the existence of the church for the sake of the church existing.

Hello Brad,

I liked your post. One comment if I may. I have not mant emergent church folks who do not believe "that the Bible speaks authoritatively to all the questions of contemporary culture." The issue is rather with the answer that they believe scripture is delivering. What I am trying to say is that the issue is in biblical interpretation rather than in biblical authority. Of course we all know that this is an issue that is broader than just the emergent church movement.

If you get a chance could you explain you last paragraph? I am missing your point. Thanks.

-Regards

Warm regards.

bradofshaw · #6 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 09:30 AM

Hey Douglas,

The difficulty I find in understanding this movement is that it is not very homogenous, so I would hate to mischaracterize some based on those I have come in contact with. I don't doubt there are sincere men and women of faith in the movement. Driscoll seems to be honest in his desire to preserve the fundamentals of the faith.

I struggled to put into words in that last paragraph the sense that I get when I read McClaren or others in the movement. Take that first section of Driscoll's paper, where he describes the church 1.0-3.0. The fact that cultural distinctives of a church that has always been changing with the times are made to be the important characteristics of what church is or should be just seems off base to me. Like he said, this movement originally started with the question, "how do we make church hip?" And suddenly insignificant things like "should we have a choir or a worship team" become the center of discussion. This debate would seem more important to me once they settle that first debate about the authority of scripture.

I care much less if a church wants to meet in homes, and do ministry via coffee shop chatrooms, than if that church is actually teaching the truths of the Gospel. Since they seem to have an ongoing debate about what the Gospel is, I don't see the point in the debate about how the church should look.

The question you brought up, "must a preacher of the gospel be ordained" I think illustrates a difference in approaches. I would say he should be, not because the Bible explicitly says he must, and not because I have elevated that church tradition to strict doctrine, but rather because it is prudent to do so. We ordain men to ensure that the truths of the Gospel are preserved and proclaimed and to guard against false teaching (I think that is strictly from the Bible).

However, I get the sense that the emergent perspective would be that ordination is a holdover from a different culture, that it isn't relevant to be academic in the pulpit, or that people who aren't ordained are somehow more authentic than men who have been trained in theology. Well, all of these could be true, and their could be unordained men who care more about the Gospel than men with seminary degrees. But do we want to throw caution to the wind and allow uneducated men to sheppherd the flock of Christ?

Anyway, I hope that clears up what I meant to say somewhat.

BronxBriar · #7 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 10:29 AM

Brad,

Thank you so much for your swift and thoughtful response. You have given me some things to think about. Always a good thing!

Regards,
Doug

victorbravo · #8 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 11:17 AM

I found it interesting that his description of Church 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 looked at form and cultural context and did not even consider what I think most conservative reformed churches practice and believe.

No mention of the centrality of preaching God's Word. As for culture, the only options are modern and post-modern. Some of us belong to churches that are neither.

And I don't even know what it means to have a privileged place in the culture. Nobody seems very impressed when I mention my church--scared maybe, but not impressed.

From what I read in the article, all of the various factions of the emerging church are actually reactionaries. They react to perceived problems, which is sort of like trying to drive by looking in your rear-view mirror. I think they should instead flee to the Word and get their doctrine straight first.

MeanieCalvinist · #9 (**permalink**) 04-13-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by victorbravo
I found it interesting that his description of Church 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 looked at form and cultural context and did not even consider what I think most conservative reformed churches practice and believe.

No mention of the centrality of preaching God's Word. As for culture, the only options are modern and post-modern. Some of us belong to churches that are neither.

And I don't even know what it means to have a privileged place in the culture. Nobody seems very impressed when I mention my church--scared maybe, but not impressed.

From what I read in the article, all of the various factions of the emerging church are actually reactionaries. They react to perceived problems, which is sort of like trying to drive by looking in your rear-view mirror. I think they should instead flee to the Word and get their doctrine straight first.

Great point!