Kevin DeYoung has an important critique of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2010/02/Christianity-and-McLarenism.pdf.
Also, Mike Wittmer has a long series of posts critiquing the book at http://mikewittmer.wordpress.com, starting on February 3, 2010.
Showing posts with label Emergent Churches. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emergent Churches. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, December 29, 2008
Why I'm Not Emergent
I'm not an Emergent Christian.
Part of my reason for being non-Emergent is social. I'm simply not cool, hip, or fly. I don't even try to be. I do not dye my hair different colors. (I'm a guy. I have never dyed my hair. The frost on top is 100% natural.) I don't hang out in coffee shops or pubs, because I don't care for the taste of coffee or alcohol. I don't know half the names of the famous people I see on the TV or movie screens. Furthermore, I get bored of engaging in a "conversation" (the Emergent word for "argument") with someone who either does not believe in the existence of truth or does not believe it can be known. What's the point? Why do people who do not even believe in the existence of truth argue? Are they trying to convince me of their "truth" that truth does not exist? It's even more annoying when they use the Bible that they don't believe is trustworthy. Talk about being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (as Shakespeare would say).
However, I do have a few things in common with Emergents.
1. I am not interested in being enslaved to legalism. I was forced out of a legalistic church about 15 years ago, and I have no interest in returning to such a system.
2. I am interested in social issues like poverty, racism, and human trafficking.
3. I agree with the need to be involved in a community (church).
4. I appreciate the emphasis on living like Jesus.
While I have a few things in common with Emergents, I do not fit in with their movement. This is why:
1. I believe that truth exists and can be known...not exhaustively, but adequately.
2. I believe that God has revealed his message to us in the Scriptures in a manner that can be comprehended.
3. I believe in the existence of right and wrong.
4. I believe in biblical inerrancy.
5. While I join with Emergents in confronting problems like poverty and racism, I will not ignore the sinfulness of homosexuality and unnecessary abortions. It's cool for Emergents to confront social problems from a liberal perspective, but they tent to shy away from doing the same from a conservative perspective.
6. I believe in the reality of heaven and hell. I don't believe they should be ignored or dismissed.
7. I don't believe the point of the Christian's journey is the journey itself. The point is the destination: the new heavens and new earth in the presence of God.
8. I believe that sound doctrine leads to sound faith, sound thinking, and sound living.
9. I believe in following Jesus as the only way to get to the Father.
10. I believe that the Christian's journey has a beginning point: a faith in Christ that prompts one to follow him in repentance, baptism, and a life committed to honoring him.
11. I believe that the death and resurrection of Christ is the heart of the gospel, rather than his ethical teachings (as important as they are). Since I fail in living up to his ethical teachings, I need the hope of forgiveness, grace, and new life empowered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Being a "red letter Christian" is inadequate for imperfect people like me.
As a disclaimer, I know that some Emergents will agree with me on some of my points.
For a good review of the Emergent Movement, please check out Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It is available in bookstores and at amazon.com.
Part of my reason for being non-Emergent is social. I'm simply not cool, hip, or fly. I don't even try to be. I do not dye my hair different colors. (I'm a guy. I have never dyed my hair. The frost on top is 100% natural.) I don't hang out in coffee shops or pubs, because I don't care for the taste of coffee or alcohol. I don't know half the names of the famous people I see on the TV or movie screens. Furthermore, I get bored of engaging in a "conversation" (the Emergent word for "argument") with someone who either does not believe in the existence of truth or does not believe it can be known. What's the point? Why do people who do not even believe in the existence of truth argue? Are they trying to convince me of their "truth" that truth does not exist? It's even more annoying when they use the Bible that they don't believe is trustworthy. Talk about being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (as Shakespeare would say).
However, I do have a few things in common with Emergents.
1. I am not interested in being enslaved to legalism. I was forced out of a legalistic church about 15 years ago, and I have no interest in returning to such a system.
2. I am interested in social issues like poverty, racism, and human trafficking.
3. I agree with the need to be involved in a community (church).
4. I appreciate the emphasis on living like Jesus.
While I have a few things in common with Emergents, I do not fit in with their movement. This is why:
1. I believe that truth exists and can be known...not exhaustively, but adequately.
2. I believe that God has revealed his message to us in the Scriptures in a manner that can be comprehended.
3. I believe in the existence of right and wrong.
4. I believe in biblical inerrancy.
5. While I join with Emergents in confronting problems like poverty and racism, I will not ignore the sinfulness of homosexuality and unnecessary abortions. It's cool for Emergents to confront social problems from a liberal perspective, but they tent to shy away from doing the same from a conservative perspective.
6. I believe in the reality of heaven and hell. I don't believe they should be ignored or dismissed.
7. I don't believe the point of the Christian's journey is the journey itself. The point is the destination: the new heavens and new earth in the presence of God.
8. I believe that sound doctrine leads to sound faith, sound thinking, and sound living.
9. I believe in following Jesus as the only way to get to the Father.
10. I believe that the Christian's journey has a beginning point: a faith in Christ that prompts one to follow him in repentance, baptism, and a life committed to honoring him.
11. I believe that the death and resurrection of Christ is the heart of the gospel, rather than his ethical teachings (as important as they are). Since I fail in living up to his ethical teachings, I need the hope of forgiveness, grace, and new life empowered by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Being a "red letter Christian" is inadequate for imperfect people like me.
As a disclaimer, I know that some Emergents will agree with me on some of my points.
For a good review of the Emergent Movement, please check out Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It is available in bookstores and at amazon.com.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Using Evangelism as an Excuse for Inaction
Sometimes I hear someone say, "The only way to change the situation is through evangelism." To be frank, I suspect that such words hide cowardly hearts. I have used such words as an excuse for inaction when I have not wanted to confront wrongdoing and injustice, and I'm ashamed of it.
At http://theresurgence.com/michael_spielman_2006_biblical_mandate, Michael Spielman addresses the issue of when evangelism is the inappropriate first response to injustice. Here is an excerpt:
"Many wonderful and godly saints have suggested that evangelism is the best and only hope for changing people's minds about abortion. Merely changing someone's mind about abortion (without getting them saved), they argue, does no good in the long run. 'They will simply go to hell as a more moral person.' While this is true as it applies to the parent, such reasoning wholly neglects the person whose life hangs in the balance, and for this reason, such logic is faulty. Changing someone's mind about abortion does not have in view the creation of a more moral person, it has in view the saving of a child's life. If you change a pregnant woman's thinking about aborting her child, it will not gain her access to heaven, but it will certainly gain her child access to life, and that is of no small significance!
"Here's what it boils down to. If any of us were to witness the kidnapping and subsequent assault of a small child (especially if it was our own child), two things would be true. First, we wouldn't delay intervention with thoughts of 'calling' and 'resource distribution.' In other words, we wouldn't stand there and think, 'Is God calling me to help this child?' or, ' Is getting involved in this really a wise use of my resources?' Secondly, we wouldn't think for a minute that evangelism were the only legitimate means of helping this child. We might physically confront the assailant, we might call the police, we might ask for help from those around us, but there isn't a person alive who would think to himself, 'The only biblical way to spare this child is to share the gospel with her attacker so that he will repent and stop assaulting her.' Such an 'evangelistic' approach would be in violation of so many biblical principles that it would, in fact, be an absurdly 'unbiblical' path to take."
Perhaps nothing is less appealing than Christians who are too paralyzed by fear to help those who are being mistreated. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to be timid. We have been told by seeker-sensitive church leaders that, above all else, we must not be offensive. We must seek the popular approval of the masses if we hope to grow churches. Taking a stand to confront the oppressors on behalf of the oppressed would not be popular in many cases. Some postmodern Emergent leaders have told us that we cannot reach the younger generation by confronting evil because they are offended that we believe in such things as the existence of truth and lies, right and wrong, and justice and injustice.
I, for one, am tired of living in slavery to the opinions of others when people are being hurt by the actions of careless or malicious people. Helping hurting people is more important than my popularity. I do not want to hide my cowardice and inaction with lame excuses about not wanting to offend the unjust and apathetic. When it came to helping the hurting, Christ never caved in to popular opinion. He couldn't care less what people who were offended by his compassionate actions thought about him. It's time for his followers to actually follow his example. It's time for compassion with courage.
At http://theresurgence.com/michael_spielman_2006_biblical_mandate, Michael Spielman addresses the issue of when evangelism is the inappropriate first response to injustice. Here is an excerpt:
"Many wonderful and godly saints have suggested that evangelism is the best and only hope for changing people's minds about abortion. Merely changing someone's mind about abortion (without getting them saved), they argue, does no good in the long run. 'They will simply go to hell as a more moral person.' While this is true as it applies to the parent, such reasoning wholly neglects the person whose life hangs in the balance, and for this reason, such logic is faulty. Changing someone's mind about abortion does not have in view the creation of a more moral person, it has in view the saving of a child's life. If you change a pregnant woman's thinking about aborting her child, it will not gain her access to heaven, but it will certainly gain her child access to life, and that is of no small significance!
"Here's what it boils down to. If any of us were to witness the kidnapping and subsequent assault of a small child (especially if it was our own child), two things would be true. First, we wouldn't delay intervention with thoughts of 'calling' and 'resource distribution.' In other words, we wouldn't stand there and think, 'Is God calling me to help this child?' or, ' Is getting involved in this really a wise use of my resources?' Secondly, we wouldn't think for a minute that evangelism were the only legitimate means of helping this child. We might physically confront the assailant, we might call the police, we might ask for help from those around us, but there isn't a person alive who would think to himself, 'The only biblical way to spare this child is to share the gospel with her attacker so that he will repent and stop assaulting her.' Such an 'evangelistic' approach would be in violation of so many biblical principles that it would, in fact, be an absurdly 'unbiblical' path to take."
Perhaps nothing is less appealing than Christians who are too paralyzed by fear to help those who are being mistreated. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to be timid. We have been told by seeker-sensitive church leaders that, above all else, we must not be offensive. We must seek the popular approval of the masses if we hope to grow churches. Taking a stand to confront the oppressors on behalf of the oppressed would not be popular in many cases. Some postmodern Emergent leaders have told us that we cannot reach the younger generation by confronting evil because they are offended that we believe in such things as the existence of truth and lies, right and wrong, and justice and injustice.
I, for one, am tired of living in slavery to the opinions of others when people are being hurt by the actions of careless or malicious people. Helping hurting people is more important than my popularity. I do not want to hide my cowardice and inaction with lame excuses about not wanting to offend the unjust and apathetic. When it came to helping the hurting, Christ never caved in to popular opinion. He couldn't care less what people who were offended by his compassionate actions thought about him. It's time for his followers to actually follow his example. It's time for compassion with courage.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Emerging/Emergent Churches
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB).
Gary Zustiak, a professor at Ozark Christian College, has written 3 very useful articles about Emerging, Emergent, and Missional churches in the latest Christian Standard magazine. While the Emerging and Missional church movements have some positive features, I believe that the Emergent church movement will undermine and destroy congregations that embrace it. The Emergent church movement does not respect the teachings of the Bible.
The articles may be read at:
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=701
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=702
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=703
Gary Zustiak, a professor at Ozark Christian College, has written 3 very useful articles about Emerging, Emergent, and Missional churches in the latest Christian Standard magazine. While the Emerging and Missional church movements have some positive features, I believe that the Emergent church movement will undermine and destroy congregations that embrace it. The Emergent church movement does not respect the teachings of the Bible.
The articles may be read at:
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=701
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=702
http://www.christianstandard.com/articledisplay.asp?id=703
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
