The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Conversation

Over at Emergent Village, perhaps the main website for all things Emergent originally started by Brian McLaren and now run by Tony Jones. Jonathan Brink has written an article declaring 5 things that the Emerging Church has gotten right. I want to argue in a series of posts that each of those 5 things have led to the orthodox destruction of the movement.

The first point raised by Knight is that the Emerging Church is "A Commitment To Reality," which is described as, "The emerging church is committed to an honest conversation about what is good and what is broken about the body."

Knight argues that the Emerging Church is willing to discuss all things good and bad about the Church as it stands today. The bad: the Church is in decline. This is especially clear in Europe, Australia, and other nations in the world. In America, the Church is, at best, plateaued or stagnant. He argues:

People are leaving and not coming back. Ignoring the problems simply no longer works. We need new expressions that include a more wholistic understanding of what it means to follow Jesus into mission.

This is certainly a problem that we must face as the body of Christ, but one must wonder if the Emerging Church is fixing our decline or making it worse. Every time in history whenever members of the body of Christ felt irrelevant or in decline, or even statistically knew that they were in decline, many responded in a way that only made the situation worse.

For example, as modernism rose, so did Protestant Liberalism. Beginning with men like Friedrich Schliermacher and others, the Church responded to it's irrelevance in the culture by compromising Biblical truth. Schliermacher put emphasis on experience and eventually denied the necessity of believing in certain doctrines held dearly by the Church throughout it's history.

His hope was to present the faith more attractive. I do not believe that Schliermacher was evil in the sense that he desired to redefined the faith for his own purposes. In fact many in his day, especially those in whom he was trying to reach, rejected his redefinition of Christianity. To them, it still remained unattractive. Schliermacher's goal was to be "missional." He hoped that by reshaping Christian theology that had become irrelevant, the Church would grow.

The result of Protestant liberalism? Worse decline.

Is the Emerging Church liberal? That depends on what you mean by the Emerging Church. Some in the movement are, others aren't, while some don't know yet, they are still "dialoguing." Which is why this movement is so dangerous.

First, the movement can easily convince someone that they are orthodox while at the same time deny orthodoxy, or at best redefine what orthodoxy is. This, as history has shown, will not lead to growth and it definitely will not lead to added saved souls.

The problem for the Church in Schliermacher's view was it's unpreparedness for modernism, the problem with the Emerging Church is it's belief that the Church is unprepared and irrelevant for postmodernism and has resulted in their emphasis on conversation and other postmodern tenants. Because the movement is only talking and debating rather than standing and defending, they will end up in caught in the trap of liberalism. Though most believe in the "inspiration" of the Bible, though they might not like to use such words, they repeatedly are hesitant of actually affirming it's stance. They are always wanting to question everything: salvation, the Bible, theology, truth, Jesus Christ, the Church, homosexuality, God, etc. Rather than affirm what the Church has always believed about these issues, the Emerging Church is encouraging people to have their doubts and even redefine them. This encouragement will, in the end, lead to liberalism and heresy.

I am all for being open and always rethinking about what I believe, but I do not do it in the name of relevance. I rethink and reshape my theology not based on polls or the national trends, but on the Word of God. Anytime a group starts letting polls and statistics drive their theology, they will be the one's in decline, not orthodox, conservative Christianity. The true gospel will survive, and thrive, regardless of where the culture is headed.

As to what specific issues Knight has in minded remains unclear. But from what I have studied and observed from the Emerging Church, what they are discussing is not encouraging. If they were discussing whether or not piano-only worship is the best method, I'd be on board. But that is not even an issue. Their adoption of postmodernism (and I have done an entire series on this issue already, Part 1, Part 2a, Part 2b, Part 3) has lead them to question what makes Christianity Christian. In short, many of the things they are questioning is orthodoxy itself. This might be an honest conversation, but the wrong conversation.

The murkiness they currently are affirming will lead, and for some already has lead, to heresy. McLaren does not believe in "converting" people of other faith but learning from them. His redefinition of the Kingdom of God and skewing the whole meaning of what Jesus meant by the phrase has lead to a postmodern social gospel, rather than the gospel proclaimed by Paul and the apostles.

Rob Bell's reinterpretation and new hermeneutic of the entire Bible has led him down a very dangerous path towards social gospel. These two men don't want to "win others for Christ," but rather "serve the world for Christ." By this, they mean to be authentic, not just obedient. Obedience in terms of fulfilling the Great Commission by seeking lost souls, pointing them to Christ, calling for sinners to repent, grow in knowledge of the faith, and anxiously wait for the hope of Christ's return.

The Emerging Church wants none of this. They want authenticity, yes, but not the authenticity of the gospel. They want to be seen, rather than just heard. There certainly should be a balance of both, but the Emerging Church has skewed what we mean by being authentic. Sure we don't want to be fake, but at the same time, we don't want to deny the truth of the gospel.

Yes, the Emerging Church is honest in their conversation about what is good and bad about the Church and we should applaud them for it. However, while having the conversation, they are sinking in quicksand.

Despite what Knight might argue, the Emerging Church is not giving answers to their questions. For answers implies aboslutes and propositional truths. The Emerging Church wants to remain wrapped in mystery and vagueness. They want poetry and dance, not absolutes and certainty. And this is rooted in their adoption of postmodernism as the current glasses one must wear to understand he gospel.

Honest converation is good. Asking serious question makes it even better. But leaving such questions that the Bible clearly answers in the air is dangerous ground that leaves man in his sin and hopelessness and that is all the Emerging Church offers to our world of want. That is not authenticity, that is cowardess!