Amen brother James. A while back I blogged on another time where he explained why he is not Emergent. He is always so articulate on things that need clarity.

Big Chris
Because I said so blog

I think the big issue here is that the "emerging church" would agree with everything you've said. I hope the second part of this will actually tell us why you are not "emerging" because this one didn't come close to doing it. It seems as if you have categorized every emerging church as being about style more than substance, sincerity over truth, and negative rather than helpful. I think that is an oversimplification and really very silly. This was a very poor article for those two reasons. it is making false assumptions about what it means to be "emergent" and then disagreeing with those false assumptions. Very poor.

Those are great responses, James. Problem is, though, that most emerging church leaders that I'm aware of, aren't making the statements you're responding to. They're myths (IMO).

1. No one's saying that being a protester is a credential for guiding us to the good. OTOH, it seemed to work pretty well for Martin Luther.

2. No one's saying that sincerity replaces the need to be obedient to revealed truth.

3. And no one's saying that style is more important than substance.

Again, I agree with your statements. I just thinking you're dealing more with myths than reality.

Amen Amen Amen!

James,

Thank you for your boldness in engaging the emerging church. I appreciate your attempt to be kind in your critique. I, however, find your comments rather wanting. Here's why:

1. I know that you realize that you are a Protestant. As such, you are part of that movement that "protested" the established church of its day. Following your line of reasoning, they were necessarily in the same camp as the hippies of the late 60s. Not all protest movements are void of depth of thought as to solutions to the problems. The best of the Emerging Church are in deep theological and ecclesiological discussions. They are offering solutions beyond the simple. In fact, their solutions are sometimes so radical that it may be called a New Reformation. I admit that there are a number of simpletons who are just complaining; but that is not all there is. You are merely offering a caricature of the movement.

2. You mentioned your associations with Chris Seay, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell. How, exactly, are these people “cavalierly questioning the priority of biblical proclamation or the binding authority and sufficiency of Scripture?” You must know something the rest of us are missing, for it seems clear from their writings that they are very much interested in following the Holy Scriptures. In fact, Emergent issued this statement back in June:
"yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ."

3. Your criticism about style outweighing substance has some merit. There is always the temptation for church leaders to take the latest craze and use them in their ministries to attract more people. But you state this as if "emerging" people don't know that style must never outweigh substance. I remember the first time I heard Dan Kimball speak, he made it VERY CLEAR UP FRONT that what he was interested in was not just the "candles and bells, paintings and sculpture, incense and chanting" (in your words), but the deeper issues of church change—and this to a crowd of pastors who just wanted quick-fix solutions of mere style.

I wonder why you have painted such a caricature of emerging churches. Perhaps you have not studied the movement deep enough. Maybe your exposure is limited. It is far easier to dismiss something that one is not familiar with than to truly seek to learn what is there. I’ll be interested to read your next part.

Great thoughts from a respected pastor and leader within the Body of Christ. Thank you Pastor James.

The biggest problem I have with the emerging church (generation) is their seeming disdain for "answers." "Don't give me (pat) answers," they say, "just ask the right questions. Don't fix it, just walk with me."
I understand some of that, but in saying this aren't they denying all the answers the Bible has? Aren't they denying Jesus spoke a LOT about truth and it setting us free? In speaking about truth this way He assumes we can know truth and that it has some practical "fix it" qualities, eh?

Gee, I thought I was an emerging pastor, but I guess I was wrong since I believe that simply pointing out what's not right in the church isn't enough. And that one can be sincerely wrong. And that while style and form are helpful they aren't truth.

I have to agree with this sincere gentleman and his thought provoking assesment. However, under point two above, "Because God is looking for obedience to revealed truth, not just sincerity.", our friend is making broad and catagorical statements about the "Cavalier questioning of the explicit statements of Scripture..." My dear friend, to have made that assement is your right but to not present any evidence of the exact misrepresentations to which you are alluding is to be guilty yourself of the very same cavalier attitude. You are doubting and rightly so the validity of any movement based on sincerity rather than truth and yet are you not asking those to whom you are writting to do the same? Are we to accept your view point simply because you are sincere? Must you not provide the errors and the truth to which you are referring?

It is far easier as you say to point a finger at what is wrong than it is to suggest what could be done to make it right.

I think you have something worth saying and something worth being heard. Please friend, do not disqaulify yourself with your own standards because I for one want to hear what you have to say!

Thanks for the courageous comments, James. As a pastor and a staff member of a Christian Education ministry, this past year we discovered that one of America's major church trends is a transition from doctrine to entertainment. In Martyn Lloyd Jones' classic on spiritual warfare, he shows that it is cults that offer quick answers and remedies, whereas the true faith lays strong foundations for who we are before we are even called on to do something for Him. When in a hurry to be relevant,we need reminders like these. Thanks!

I resonate with some of what you're saying, but you make dichotomies like "According to Jesus it’s still truth that sets you free, not artistic expression." that are unhelpful and really play into the emerging guys' best critique of the status quo. You set up a "this and not this" type relationship between truth and art, between substance and style. But style has a great deal to do with substance, as anyone who has tried to use a powerful computer with a poor interface can attest. There is a substance to style (to borrow the title of Virginia Postrel's book on the subject). And there is an artistic element to truth; it may be artistic truth that sets us free. That said, I think we do well to be suspicious of the emerging church, and your points about novelty and being sure we understand from where our delight comes are certainly very helpful.

Why is it that every critique that I read of emergent-type things has a "style over substance" statement? I have not seen or heard of anyone involved with the emergent conversation say that style is more important than substance... Where are people getting this from? You need some serious sources, not just anecdotal illustrations about candles and incense, if you want to be taken seriously.

Give us some background. How about using examples where these leaders that you mentioned are doing the things that you claim that they are. You make good points, ones that all of us whether "Emergent" or not should take to heart. Careful or you may come across as "Emergent".

sometimes i think some of my fellow conservative evangelical brethren and sisteren are so used to be in 'react' mode that they can't help but box shadows of images that are rooted in myth and not reality...who said it was enough to be "sincere"? rob bell? i've heard that guy's sermons and i find nothing of the sort...

while i agree in principle with what macdonald is saying, the pat generalizations that pepper his article only give more fodder to the emerging conversation's claim about the reactionarism of moderns (or movement as some insist it is)...

oh well, the beat goes on and so does the Church

Thanks for the wonderful insights Pastor McDonald! For those of you who are engaged in the "Emergent Conversation" can you tell me how you define yourselves? Is there a handbook, blog, bestselling book or conference that guides you? Thanks in advance for your input.

James, I'm sure it breaks your heart, as it does mine, when people use the worst examples of the evangelical church to characterize all evangelical christians. In the same way, it seems unfair and unhelpful to characterize the emerging church movement on the basis of the poor examples you seem to have encountered. At its heart, it is not a protest movement, it is not forsaking revealed truth, it is not a collection of trendy worship tricks.

If the emerging churches that you've seen are like this, then I'd love to invite you to come see one of the hundreds, thousands, that are nothing like this. The real thing doesn't live in books or blogs, or in seminars and PBS specials. The real thing exists in community, and before you critique it, you have to come and meet it.

If your insight into the emerging church comes through Amazon, you haven't seen it yet.

Ok:
Kind of of tough to respond to these critiques of 1/2 an article. Let me say though that I purposely did not include specific examples of where I see style as a bigger concern than substance or where I see explicit statements of scripture being questioned in a reckless manner. I avoided names and book quotes because I don't want readers to get into a defense of certain personalities. Read the top 5 books on the Emerging Church and you will see underminding questions about everything from the virgin birth, to the reality of a literal hell even the need for all people everywhere to come to personal faith in Christ in this life for hope of eternal salvation. The fact that the bible commands us to "preach the word," rather than simply dialogue about it seems lost on a lot of people. I don't preach because I think it's clever or because people like it, I do it because God has commanded me to and has promised to bless it. In fact the nature of the bible as a book that gives answers is also a point of frequent reconsideration in the emergent dialogue. OK? So there are some examples of what I have in mind without getting into a food fight with any individuals, people I do love and respect in certain ways and most of all consider brothers in the Lord. Does my concern over relationship make me emergent? :) Or does it just make be biblical?

james macdonald

Thank you Pastor James for putting into words a lot of the concerns that I have regarding the emerging church "movement". I look forward to the other half of your article.

"I avoided names and book quotes because I don't want readers to get into a defense of certain personalities."

Pastor James, I think that's a weak argument. I prefer specifics. Look at the writings of Calvin, for example (Institutes of the Christian Religion). We need more bold pastors like him. Being specific is required. Don't be afraid to confront religiousity; our King Jesus did it all the time.

Wow.

3 quick comments:

Ok, I guess the first is to just say that no self-respecting pastor will say that "style is more important than substance." No church (that I've ever heard of) will print that in their constitution or doctrinal statements of faith, or even acknowledge that's how they "do" worship. HOWEVER, that does change whether that is, in fact, how they operate. There are many examples. That goes for the "sincerity over truth" dictum as well.

My second comment is that it is not a weak argument to not include names. It is called Christian charity. I would just ask that before anyone tries to call Pastor MacDonald on not supplying examples, to please do what he has suggested and either read the books (I will go one better and suggest beginning with "A Generous Orthodoxy" and "Velvet Elvis" - shameless plug for Amazon.com, and I'm sure both authors will also thank me for the publicity), or listen to some of the sermons and conferences where some of the leading emergent church leaders are speaking.

Thirdly (and my post is disturbing me because it seems like I'm defending a personality at this point, something Pastor MacDonald was hoping to avoid, and definitely not my intention - lol), an article posted on this blog is not the proper format to go into the detail most of the critics/emergents on this board are requesting. If the author was to include it, it would cease to be an article and would become at least a treatise. Which would be fine in it's proper place. Perhaps Pastor MacDonald could write just such a position paper and place it somewhere on his church's website. At least that would be a fitting location for it, since methinks this most certainly is not.

The apostles had no doubts about the certainty of their message. It was more sure than if an angel had delivered it. Nor did they didn't apologize for having answers.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

They were very conversant but their conversations weren't open ended nor endless.

I just finished reading "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell and can say for sure that Rob wouldn't choose style or form over truth.

I agree totally with Pastor James. To attack Atheism you don't have to read all the books written by Atheists. It is SILLY to do so. And to criticize the emerging church movement, you don't have to read every book, interview everybody in US (the world) who are emerging church proponents.
What Pastor James is concerned about, is about Emphasis. Style is not evil, but if it is emphasized more than substance, it becomes evil.
It is also about the center of Christian faith. Worship is a must, but if worship occupy the center of Christian faith, it is a heresy. Nothing should replace the proclamation of the Gospel (read: Biblical Preaching) as the center of Christianity in the church, family, or anywhere.
What Pastor James asks is: "Repent from all efforts to decentralize the biblical preaching and replace it with something else."
We exist today as Christians because there were recorded proclamation of the Gospel from the Past. Not because there were church building, candle, style (art), etc. And this is what we should spend time most to pass it to the next generation. The emerging church just thinks about the present time (short-term satisfaction) rather than long-term (eternal) consequences. "Repent from your short-sightedness."

I must say thanks to Pastor James for your outstanding observation of how the church of today has totaly missed the Biblical truth of what the New Testament Church is and its purpose in the world. The Church (NT:1577 ekkl¢sía GK.)
denotes the NT community of the redeemed in its twofold aspect. First, all who were called by and to Christ in the fellowship of His salvation, the church worldwide of all times, and only secondarily to an individual church (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:44,). The church house is for the teaching of Gods Word to learn how to live according to His Word,to love one another on one accord and to be taught how to be true diciples carring the Gospel of Christ to a lost world. There are too many people hid behind the four walls of the church being satisfied with fancy dress,great singing in which was only found in temple worship of the Old Testament, totally relaxed sitting in their comfort zones and being totally satisfied with the shape the world is in today. I have a hard time myself as Bro. James in seeing the church of today being even close to what Christ organized it to be in Matt.28:19-20.
Keep it up Bro. James because Satan is screaming out because you are on his big foot! To you who are trying to prove that we are wrong to agree with Pastor James, please compare what we say with the Word of God.How can a church be a Democracy when only Christ rules. The church of today has forgotten who rules.

Not sure how to respond to these comments because, ironically, there is no "substance" to them...they are basically rhetoric and style. He launches a number of red herrings and straw mans and thinks he has said something convincing. The problem is that no "emergent" people I know would say the things he accuses them of. If you are going to criticize the emergent church, lets have some real examples please! Engage the writers! I must conclude (by these posted comments) that their author doesn't understand what he has read.

In some ways, I appreciate the charity his gives emergent leaders at the beginning of his comments. But then again I'm not sure I buy it, because it serves his accusation that emergent supporters are simply sentimental hippies that we need not take seriously.

Here’s some ideas for part 2:

1. I am not emergent because I really don’t understand what the emergent conversation is all about.
2. I am not emergent because people might stop listening to my radio program.
3. I am not emergent because I have too much invested in the old system, after all I could lose my power and influence…uh…and my salary.

Dave Brazz,
1) Not very generous of you.
2) Not very helpful in fostering any form of conversation.

To equate the "emerging church" with Martin Luther is an insult to Martin Luther, and shows a lack of dpeth of understanding of history. It is also a slam at evangelical christians.

R.Miller, it seems a car hit your sacred cow.

There is a lot going forward in our day. I think that it is only fair that critics speak up with their concerns about any new movement, including the Emergent movement. I disagree with the points, but it does represent a perspective of what the Emergent church is doing. I think that is important to address because the Emergent movement has its most value as a dialogue partner with the whole church.

In any case, no matter where you belong, why not let us start by rejoicing that the gospel is being preached - the good news is getting out there.

I know, as an Emergent pastor (boy I don't like that term - I'm just trying to live faithful to the scriptures) I have had the privilege of seeing the gospel penetrate hearts of folks who wouldn't set foot in a traditional church building. These same folks are coming alive with the Spirit as we have simply been exploring the gospels together. Sure we don't give pat answers (really, do you have a different bible than me? because I never found Jesus giving easy answers and I wrestle with this book almost daily) or tell people what/how to believe. But we live it before them and they get it, and Jesus gets them. Isn't that what we are all trying to do?

I lot of the response I see to this article sounds a lot like, "you don't know me, don't act like you know me". It is possible for a criticism to always incorporate every individual that takes part in whatever appears to be the emergent church?

If you keep your doctrine and theology purposely open for dicussion, how can anyone argue with your stance. I mean it's the ultimate defense against debate because no matter what someone says they always don't know it completely. The problem is many people who claim to be emergent don't know it completely either.

An excellent, encouraging and stimulating article!

It seems that the "emergent church" is unaware of the role of the Holy Spirit. It is difficult for me to call such a church.