The Final Straw: The Problem With the Emerging Church - Postmodernism Part 1

I am no supporter of the Emerging Church movement. All it is is postmodernism mixed with liberal Christianity with a slice of social gospel theology mixed in. It is not orthodox and it certainly isn't founded on the principles laid out in Scripture as properly understood. It is, at times, hard to attack the Emerging Church on what they believe because they seem to embrace everything (hence the postmodern part). Whenever it's primary leader, Brian McLaren, came out with a book called, "A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished Christian," you knew that postmodernism has infiltrated the church.

I have written several articles relating to Brian McLaren and his theology as it relates to the Social Gospel (here and here) and his faulty understanding of the doctrine of hell (here and here). But McLaren isn't the only person in the Emerging Church to be concerned about. The movement as a whole is dangerous and must be rejected. It has no foundation, and where it seems to stand is faulty and misguided, and it is hypocritical in its attacks against persons like me.

It is critical that Christians not be wooed by this false "church." It is not Christian and is nothing more than a masked devil masquerading as Christianity. We must, therefore, remove the mask and exposed the nakedness of this beast, these so-called Christians.

In the next several post, I intend on laying out reasons why true believers in the gospel should reject this dangerous trend and instead embrace Biblical orthodoxy. Though the Emerging Church is attractive, it is dangerous and should be avoided. As a youth pastor, I see it's many trends creeping into the church, especially in youth ministry, without notice and I am greatly concerned. Though these may be long, I encourage you to think about this issue and think about what the Bible says, and not what you want it to say. God doesn't care about our opinion, He is most concerned with our obedience.

EMERGING POSTMODERNS

As I have said, the Emerging Church is nothing more than so-called Christians who are in bed with postmodern thinking. It is hard to criticize members of the movement because they can deny every accusation one brings up against them. If you accuse them of being unbiblical, they will turn around and say that they are orthodox. If you then assume that they are against homosexuality, etc. (which is clearly the Biblical worldview), then they would deny such an accusation. Emergents seem to want to be best friends with everybody and on everybody's team and therefore seem to support everything and everyone. Their desire to be accepted is one of it's greatest desires.

When discussing orthodoxy, Brian McLaren wrote the following:

How ironic that I am writing about orthodoxy, which implies to many a final capturing of the truth about God, which is the glory of God. Sit down here next to me in this little restaurant and ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever's) is orthodox, meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christan opinions on soul, text, and culture...I'd have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong. -Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 293.

Note the inclarity of everything. McLaren doesn't even seem to know what orthodoxy is. Orthodoxy to him is different than mine and different than the Pope's, but who can say who is right? What I find most appalling is McLaren's assumption that Christians have been doing everything wrong all of these years, but thank God that he has come along to set straight 2,000 years of confusion of who Christ is and what Christianity is. The only problem, is that McLaren's theology (or lack there-of) is so wishy-washing it is hard to know even what he believes.

"JUDGE NOT, LEST YOU BE JUDGED": WHEN RELATIVISM MEETS THEOLOGY

Members of the Emerging Church seem to fit right in with the stereotypical tenants of postmodernism. One of those tenants is tolerance. Emergents do not believe in "judging" others. Like all postmodern relativist, they shutter at the thought of telling someone that they are sinners, going to hell, and stand condemned by God if they do not repent of their ways.

I put the word "judge" in quotations because a proper understanding of what that word means has been mistaken. Yes, Jesus did tell us not to judge others (Matthew 7:1). But what is interesting about this passage is that proponents of "judge not," (meaning "don't tell me I'm wrong) is that they fail to read the rest of the passage. Jesus says that it is wrong to point out the speck in your brothers eye while there is an entire plank in your own eye. The illustration and the point Jesus makes is clear: one must remove the plank from their own eye first, then they can see better to remove the speck from their brothers eye. Jesus does not condemn "judging," but rather condemns hypocritical judging.

The whole obsession of our wussy culture has over pointing out someones wrong is appalling. It is one of the foundations of why postmoderns deny the existence of truth. "If there is truth, then I might be wrong. If there is no truth, then I am not wrong. Therefore, there is no truth," seems to be the underlying logic of it all. McLaren falls in line with denying truth claims that many Christians propose:

I drive my car and listen to the Christian radio station...There I hear preacher after preacher be so absolutely sure of his bombproof answers and his foolproof biblical interpretations...And the more sure he seems, the less I find myself wanting to be a Christian, because on this side of the microphone, antennas, and speaker, life isn't that simple, answers aren't that clear, and nothing is that sure. -Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, 14.

There's no such thing as truth...is that the truth? It is simply amazing how easy we can discard truth for the sake of group hugs and tea parties in the name of unity. It is amazing how easily we can overlook matters of substance (and commonsense I might add) just so that we won't hurt each others feelings. We, therefore, have become a nation of wimps too afraid to confront out of shear fear that we, too, might be condemned.

The Emerging Church falls right in line with this thinking. They criticize orthodox Christians, like myself, of being judgmental towards homosexuals and "sinners," in our culture. They chastise us for condemning certain sexual lifestyles and abominations. I find it interesting that to the liberal, postmodern (and therefore, Emergent) mind, it is ok to condemn those who condemn. Hypocritical anyone?

They condemn us for condemning others saying that it is wrong to condemn! That is illogical nonsense that wreaks with hypocrisy. And here enters the mindset of the postmodern, "judging," condemning, etc. is ok only whenever you condemn and judge one who disagrees with you. By "disagree," I do not mean one who claims to be a Christian can condemn a Muslim. That is simply wrong, for who can know who is right? After all, postmoderns would argue, all religions lead to the same God.

Rather, one is allow to condemn another if they do not conform to your definition of judging. If one does not to affirm postmodernism at it's core, then they are outside the box and become a target of ridicule. This is why Christians are the target of our culture, orthodox believers refuse to fit the mold of a postmodern society. They continue to condemn because the gospel requires it. They will continue to proclaim the hard doctrines of sin and hell, because the gospel is at stake.

And as a result of the Emerging Church embracing postmodern thought, the gospel is essentially nonexistent. The message of Jesus is limited to love and forgiveness while the hard truth of Christ is neglected. I would want to argue that to ignore Jesus' (and the Bible's) warning about sin, hell, final judgment, wrath, condemnation, torment, and eternal suffering, the love of God will never be properly understood.

Let me explain. If we take Jesus and the Bible at their word and affirm that if a person goes through life without repenting of their sins, accepting that Christ is God in flesh who died on the cross as a substitute for our sins in which God's wrath was poured out upon Him and was raised from the dead conquering the power of death over our lives, then we are amazed at how great love the Father has towards us. If we deny that there is a hell, or that Jesus condemns the sinner, or will turn people away from heaven, then God is not just, not righteous, and therefore, not God.

Good parents discipline their children. Good judges punish criminals. Such an idea is written on the heart: evil must be punished, justice must be done. Why is it so different with God? Is He to overlook fallen creatures, whom are the pinnacle of His creation, who are in constant rebellion against their maker? Should God ignore man shaking their fist at Him at all times declaring themselves greater than He, not needing His aid or help, and denying His very existence? Would it be just for God to overlook such rebellion and sin? Would God remain righteous and pure? I think not.

And yet, the wussy postmodern would have to say yes. They have so painted God as a one giant huggabear who is incapable of judging the wrongdoer that they limit him to nothing more than a teletubby. They, therefore, shrink God down to our size making us greater than He. How foolish!

Rather, God is the just and righteous and will not let sin be overlooked. Therefore, we all stand justly condemned. But (and this is an important but) God, in His infinite wisdom, love, and mercy, offers a way out. If we wish to remain in our rebellion than we condemn ourselves. If we choose redemption, then we truly see the open, loving arms of God. The gospel says that though we do not deserve salvation, a holy and righteous God sent His Son to take the burden of the wrath of God that we so deserve upon Himself.

Therein lies true love. We deserve none of it, and yet Christ offers it freely.

To rob the gospel of the cross is to rob God of His glory and the magnitude of His infinite love. Shame on us for limiting God to daytime childrens program that means nothing more to us than a warm feeling inside.

And so, the Emerging Church are in bed with postmodernism and so has failed to be a church. The Church is built on the foundation of the gospel and by embracing postmodernism with it's many faulty ideals, they are broken their ties with the God of the Bible, and no amount of denying it will ever change that fact.

And where all of this leads is obvious: universalism at worst and inclusivism at best. Postmodernism embraces an idea that God's love is so grand that He will not (more accurately, cannot) keep everyone from entering heaven. The universalist believes that everyone will enter heaven. The inclusivest believes that those who are sincere will enter heaven.

The issue here is sincerity. The inclusive postmodern must at least embrace inclusivism because truth is nonexistent. And if truth is nonexistent, than who are we to say that we are right? True that we think that we're going to heaven, but who are we to say that others aren't? God is too loving to let those who have never heard of Jesus not enter into heaven. Therefore, those who sincerely try to live a morally good life (whatever that means and however that is measured) will enter into heaven.

Brian McLaren has argued this point:

Although I don't hope all Buddhist will become (cultural) Christians, I do hope all wo feel so calle will become Buddhist followers of Jesus; I believe they should be given that opportunity and invitation. I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will beocme Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus. -Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 264.

I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. -Brian Mclaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 260.

You get the point. A postmodern church is incapable of preaching the gospel. The doctrine of inclusivism tells Jesus that the cross was a good try. It robs the cross of it's glory and makes God into nothing more than an inadequate deity at unifying Himself under one doctrine. If people of other faith who are sincere in trying really hard to earn God's favor is an accurate description of who will be getting into heaven, then God is made up of nothing more than contradictions and inconsistencies, and therefore, ceases to be God.

But McLaren isn't alone. One blogger, in response to a resent Pew Research poll suggesting that most evangelicals are inclusivist, saying that he takes much hope in the polling data (and let it be noted that the context of this blog is an attack on Dobson's recent comments against Obama lack of clarity on orthodox Christianity. This blogger concurs with Obama on this point). Doug Paggit, another emerging Church leader, has said similar remarks saying that he joins U2 singer, Bono, in the "Coexist" movement. More could be given, but you get the point, the Emerging Church is deeply rooted in this heresy.

But this brings up one more point. Can man, though sincere, please God? The Bible seems to disagree. Paul makes it clear (Romans 3 just one example) of man's incapability to please God. If man cannot please God, then he cannot earn God's favor. And if he cannot earn God's favor, then cannot reach God. If he cannot reach God, then he will not go to heaven. If he is not destined for heaven, then he must be destined to hell.

The depravity of man implies the need for God to intervene, and that is the beauty of the gospel. The gospel says that though we are unable to save ourselves, God has stepped down and done all of the work for us. We do not approach the throne of God and say, "Look at what I did," rather, we approach the throne of God and say, "Why would your Son die for me, a wretched, undeserving sinner?" One is a response of pride, the other of humility. There is no greater humbling feeling then finding ourselves at the foot of the cross.

The Emergent Church denies all of this. And by denying the incapability of the sinner, they therefore deny the necessity of the cross. They essentially look at Christ on the cross and say that it was a waste. Jesus did not need to die for my sins. I can get to heaven on my own.

Of course, they wouldn't say such things. They emphasize the cross (somewhat) in their "worship" services, their books, seminars, teachings, etc. But what they emphasize isn't Christ's substitutionary atoning work of the cross, rather Christ showing the ultimate act of love and sacrifice.

CONCLUSION

Already, we can see that the Emerging Church's marriage with postmodernism has led to rank hersey. The gospel is robbed and neglected. It's exclusiveness is rejected. And ultimately, God is nothing more than a wussy teletubby made in our own image where we define God by our terms, and not by His own.