Over the last several years I have watched with growing trepidation the nascent movement called “emerging church.” It’s hard to characterize, since there’s no central leadership or mission statement or organizational structure. In fact, as a movement of self-conscious “postmoderns, ” most of those who identify with it deliberately eschew stuff like that. Among the people associated with it are Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christian, Generous Orthodoxy), Leonard Sweet (Post-Modern Pilgrims, SoulTsunami), Dan Kimball (The Emerging Church, Emerging Worship), and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz, Searching For God Knows What). Two of the most high profile names associated with the movement are Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis), pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, and Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing) of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis. While authors and leaders such as these say some things worth hearing, there are also a lot of questions about their commitment to biblical orthodoxy and their willingness to pander to the culture.
Those questions were raised for me again this week when I saw that Bell and Pagitt had taken part in something called InterSpirituality Day in Seattle, organized by something called Seeds of Compassion, a Seattle-based, New Agey kind of organization led by an “emissary” of the Dalai Lama. Among the other participants at this event were the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America, Roman Catholic nun Joan Chittister, Bishop Steven Charleston of Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts, Hindu philosopher Pravrajika Vrajaprana, Sikh philosopher Guru Singh, Zen Buddhist master Roshi Joan Halifax, and Steven Shankman of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Just the Christian names on the list ought to give one pause.
According to the Seeds of Compassion site, the morning session of Tuesday’s event focused on this:
In today’s complex culture, with problems such as media overload, social pressure, short attention spans, isolation and fear, how do we bring awareness of spirituality and compassion to our children in the first years of life? [Emphasis in original.]
This leads naturally to the questions, “whose spirituality?” and “in what forms?” and “spirituality related to Who or what?” In an age when most people claim an interest in “spirituality,” its becoming easier and easier for events like this to offer something squishy, fluffy, content-less, and harmless sounding, that in fact leads to a kind of mindless syncretism. Is this really what emerging church leaders like Bell and Pagitt want to be associated with? Apparently, according to the Christian Post:
Held in one of the most unchurched cities in the country–Seattle–the dialogue drew over 7,000 people who heard the diverse panel speak about nurturing compassion in a religiously pluralistic world.
While each religious leader alluded to their personal faith, from Buddhism to Christianity, there was little emphasis on their core beliefs and more talk on spiritual connectedness and the universality of being compassionate–a dialogue that seemed appropriate in a city where many say they are “spiritual” but not necessarily religious.
“When somebody wrongs you … there is, next to revenge, another option – which is not to hand back the pain; which means, you’re going to have to bear that pain,” said Bell, also a best-selling author.
“It is going to feel like a death, but it is going to lead to a resurrection. It is going to feel like a Friday but a Sunday is going to come,” he added. “That is what changes the world – when somebody chooses not to hand it back.”
What changes the world is refraining from revenge? Gee, I thought it was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that changed the world. Silly me.
The Seattle Times quoted him this way:
Rob Bell, an evangelical Christian, said those who have been wronged can choose to act in revenge or they can choose to bear the pain and forgive. Bell is founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich. (which is not affiliated with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church).
It will feel like a heavy burden at first, he said. “But then a resurrection will come. … You will inevitably become a better person on the other side. This is what changes the world.”
However you parse it, it sounds like a works-righteousness, we-can-change-the-world approach, one that would have fit in very well with the general tone of the gathering, but which bears little resemblance to biblical Christianity. It’s a pity–Bell and Pagitt had an opportunity to witness to the gospel in Seattle, but instead apparently chose the way of political correctness and mushy “spirituality.”


April 17, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Originally Mark Driscoll was considered to be in this group, but his commitment to traditional orthodoxy is evident. And from conversations I’ve had with Dan Kimball, so is his.
But you’re right – the lunatic fringe is rapidly spinning into anything and everything. I somehow doubt they were pressing the exclusive claims of Christ.
April 17, 2008 at 1:13 pm
My impression is that Driscoll has backed away from a lot of the emerging stuff as they’ve drifted farther and farther from orthodoxy.
April 17, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The term “emerging church” covers a wide waterfront, including the house church movement of which I am a part. What I find of interest is that the principal spokespersons of the emerging church movement are all involved in more or less traditionally structured churches. Where they tend to push the envelope is in theology. They seem neither liberal nor conservative, affirming little other than their unwillingness to affirm very much. Time will tell.
April 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Goto http://www.notemergent.com and download the 2 free pdf’s. Excellent, insightful analysis of the postmodern emerging church.
Pax.
April 17, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The emergent conversation was initially very diverse. There were evangelicals, neo-evangelicals, and liberals who all considered themselves ‘emergent’. But as the movement has taken on more shape, it has become decidedly more monolithic, though admittedly not entirely so. McLaren, Bell and others are the ’stars’ of the movement because they are perceived as being ‘thoughtful evangelicals’ by liberal emergents because they share a considerable dislike for propositional theology that they believe is a modernistic relic. McLaren and Bell give liberal emergents some cover in non-liberal circles, or so they think.
In the end, the emergent movement has become less of a diverse conversation, and more a justification to increase a ‘just go with it’ approach to ‘being the church’. It’s a way of taking their go with the flow approach to doctrine and making it more hip, because it’s thought that just about any supposedly ‘radical’ new idear about how to be the church is cutting edge and will speak to the unchurched. This is where the emergent movement gets in real trouble.
Theological liberalism has always rested on a kind of generational elitism that believes as a basic matter of principle that each new generation better understands and comprehends reality than the previous generation. This attitude justifies a situational rather than normative view of Scripture (because, after all, we’ve progressed beyond the thinking of 2,000 years ago). Not coincidentally, this kind of thinking provides cover for the emergent movement to shun propositional revelation, because all they have to say is that we’ve moved on from that because their underlying predispositions mandate it. It also justifies a rejection of church history and tradition, because again, each generation knows better than the last, thereby justifying revision to and rejection of previously held thought. This frees the emergent movement not just from supposedly outdated ways of doing worship and church, but from theological anchoring too. That’s why liberals are flocking to the emergent movement, because it’s the latest way to nurse their aversion to essentials in favor of an amorphously ‘generous orthodoxy’.
The emergent movement has helped liberals translate their free-for-all approach to doctrine into church life, and it’s very exciting for them – for now. The movement has also armed some ‘evangelicals’ with postmodernism’s greatest weapon – epistemological skepticism. That’s why McLaren and Bell seem to think that uncertainty and lack of clarity are marks of sophistication. The problem is that skepticism isn’t always sophisticated; it’s just the spirit of our age. That’s what’s so ironic. In their zeal to supposedly free themselves from outdated and flawed human constructs of theology in order to better discern the ‘real’ and ‘ungooped-up’ Christianity, all they’ve really done is reject one human construct for another human construct, and have fallen completely into the trap they were trying to escape.
April 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Incidentally, I did a rather a lengthy blog post on McLaren a couple years ago that can be found here:
http://jasonffoster.blogspot.com/2006/08/mclaren-vs-pascal-vs-neuhaus-part-1.html
April 17, 2008 at 7:50 pm
The liberal PCUSA presbies have Presbymergent. Go and see how loony tune they get.
It’s why I’m a classical Presbyterian…
And the fact that I’m a geek and un-cool, I guess. I still prefer old truths to hip lies.
April 17, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Jason Foster,
That was a great summary comment of the Emerging Church movement! I’m glad I read it.
Thanks.
April 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Jason, the conversation is still diverse, still engaging people from across the theological spectrum. Emergent Village is not the be all and end all. Certianly not where I am from. And you know, I’d say there is some irony here in that the myopic focus of conservatives on Emergent Village has giving them a bigger voice than they might otherwise have. If conservatives engaged more thoughtfully with the rest of us it would be a better conversation all round.
As to what are we emerging into, I would say I’m emerging into a an evangelicalism that has a deeper appreciation for history and tradition and a broader appreciation for culture and context. That’s what I’m seeking in any case.