The Emerging Church

The Emerging Church Movement’s Quasi-Political Kingdom Theology

Mathematician Eric Temple Bell said, “Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.”  The Emerging Church movement has many assumptions to examine because it buys into popular cultural notions of right and wrong, truth and error.  These popular cultural notions, however, have been shaped and molded by philosophical influences decades and centuries in advance.  It is precisely these notions that become the assumptions under which popular culture operates today.  Yesterday’s philosophies are today’s politics and the Emerging Church movement is a political movement to be sure.

Indeed, one of the difficulties in examining contemporary religious movements is the numerous philosophical influences involved.  The Emerging Church movement exhibits traits of many of the following philosophies: communism, existentialism, postmodernism, relativism, subjectivism, pragmatism, humanism, and phenomenology to mention a few.  These philosophies have their own interrelatedness that is difficult enough to discern.  The task becomes proportionately more difficult as one introduces a religious element.  However, I believe that, like mining for ore, we may be able to trace some nuggets in the stream of current activity to the originating vein of thought.  In this article, we will look specifically at the Emerging Church’s philosophies that underlie their political agenda.

Emerging Church proponents are very interesting in Postmodernism.[1] This is really a bad place for them to begin.  Nevertheless, in order to understand Emerging Church thinking, we must understand Postmodernism.  In Christian theology, Postmodernism characterizes its focus as shifting from a traditionally ecclesiastic one to a primarily Christological one.  What they mean by “Christology,” however, is not the same as in non-postmodern theological studies.  How so?  Non-postmodern Christology focuses upon Jesus as divine, provoking a Theocentric (God-centered) view of Christianity.  Postmodern Christology, however, deemphasizes Jesus’ divinity by regarding the historicity of the resurrection as irrelevant.  This results in an anthropocentric (man-centered) view of Christianity.

John Milbank, a Postmodernist Theologian told Time Magazine that discussions about the historical resurrection have “no place” in his theology (Biema).  Emerging Church leaders reflect these concerns both in their assumption of Postmodernism and in their stated concerns.  Brian McLaren is one such leader.  “I have become convinced that a generous orthodoxy appropriate for our postmodern world will have to grow out of the experience of the post-Christian, post-secular people of the cities of the twenty-first century” (92).  Following consistently with this epistemology, McLaren declares, “We must continually be aware that the ‘old, old story’ may not be the ‘true, true story’” (294).  If McLaren simply means by this statement that we must renew our affirmation in the absolute truthfulness of scripture to the detriment of denominational traditionalism, we would agree.  However, this is not so clear.  McLaren’s Postmodern assumptions cause us to question whether he agrees with Milbank in rejecting discussion of the historicity of the resurrection.  It seems that he does.

The implication of such a rejection necessarily entails an avoidance of a discussion of the divinity of Christ, for the resurrection stands as this doctrine’s central proof.  A lack of emphasis upon the divinity of Christ entails a stronger emphasis being placed upon the humanity of Christ.  For Postmodern Christians, Christology becomes not a question of the deity of Christ, but rather, his humanity.  As a result, Christianity becomes an anthropocentric (man-centered) religion.  This is reflected by Maria Clara Bingemer also who recognizes the “anthropocentric character” of contemporary Christianity.

[Contemporary] Christian thinking, discourse, and action . . . have transferred the central axis of Christianity from the previously mentioned ecclesiocentrism to a more accentuated christocentrism, which in reflecting on the person of Jesus Christ and his project, searches for what is fundamental in Christian identity.  Perhaps because of this emphasis, the anthropocentric characteristics of Christianity have been accentuated.  The human being has been the center of theological and pastoral concerns of the Church, and it is in the name of human growth, development, and wholeness that the most significant Christian movements of the last decades have been formed and brought together.  This anthropocentrism finds its base in Christology, in Jesus Christ, Lord of the Church and Redeemer of humanity (85-86 Emp. added).

Another name for anthropocentrism is humanism: placing humans at the center of concern and focusing upon humanity’s problems (as defined by humanity) as the primary work that we, mankind, must do.  God may be acknowledged in a sort of patronizing fashion, but the praxis of such a focus is humanistic and anthropocentric.  Such is the attitude of Humanist Manifesto II written in 1973: “We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species.”  This entails that man’s primary responsibilities are not in his personal relationship with God, but rather, in his personal relationship with the rest of humanity.  This shift of relationship implies a different personal ethic of behavior.  The individual’s concern is no longer how to love God in holiness and purity as one who sustains a personal relationship with God, but rather, how he can be more socially conscious of society’s problems and work toward solutions in his relationship with his fellow man.  As a result, sin against God takes a backseat to sin against man.

In this anthropocentric (man-centered) ethic, society arbitrates right and wrong because the daily problems of the culture end up being the problems with which the individual must concern himself.  “Salvation” depends upon his anthropocentrism: his ability to be concerned about and work toward the solution of humanity’s issues (as defined by humanity).  Personal ethical choices become matters of opinion because they do not relate to solving the problems of humanity as a whole.  “Sin” becomes one’s lack of involvement in working toward humanistic solutions.  This means that personal issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, take a back burner to cultural issues such as poverty and social justice.

Emerging Church practitioner Scot McKnight sympathizes with this ideology:

I have publicly aligned myself with the emerging movement. What attracts me is its soft postmodernism (or critical realism) and its praxis/missional focus. I also lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don’t think the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don’t support abortion–in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s design.

For all of his support for social issues, McKnight recognizes a danger.  He says:

Sometimes, however, when I look at emerging politics, I see Walter Rauschenbusch, the architect of the social gospel. Without trying to deny the spiritual gospel, he led his followers into the social gospel. The results were devastating for mainline Christianity’s ability to summon sinners to personal conversion. The results were also devastating for evangelical Christianity, which has itself struggled to maintain a proper balance.

As McKnight points out, the result of such anthropocentric thinking implies a church organization that is more concerned about social issues than personal conversion.  As such, the church becomes less an institution concerned with the eternal salvation of immortal souls, but an institution concerned with the temporal preservation and quality of human life on earth.  Such reduces the doctrine of the church to a Quasi-Political Kingdom Theology closer akin to contemporary Liberation Theology.

In the remainder of this article I would like to contrast the Biblical perspective and what Christians must do to combat these efforts.

First, we must renew our commitment to the teaching of the historical resurrection of Jesus.  The apostles declared plainly that the resurrection implies personally responsibility on the part of the individual.  In Acts 2:32, 36, Peter says, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. . . .   Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”  The resurrection is our assurance that Jesus is the Lord.  The resurrection is also our assurance that He will judge each individual personally one day.  In Acts 17:30-31 Paul declared to the anthropocentric Athenians, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”  The resurrection proves that the individual’s responsibility is first and foremost to his Lord and God, Jesus.

Second, because the most important relationship of the individual is with his Lord and God, this means that His life must be theocentric (God centered), not anthropocentric (man centered).  The apostle Paul declared the preeminence of Christ in Colossians 1:16-18 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”  No other relationship supersedes the relationship of the individual with the Lord because He is preeminent over all others.  When the believer prioritizes and sustains this personal relationship he receives blessings: citizenship in the heavenly kingdom (Col.1:13), redemption, forgiveness (14), peace (20), reconciliation (21), holiness (22).  This theocentric relationship addresses the individual’s problems (sins) as a necessary consequence of maintaining a loving relationship with the Lord because such a relationship motivates the praxis of the theocentrist’s life.

Third, addressing the problems (sins) of individual persons through the priority of their personal relationship with God facilitates addressing the greater problems of society as a whole.  It is individual and personal sin that is the ultimate cause of all society’s ills.  When each individual recognizes his responsibility to maintain a right relationship with a loving God, the condition of society improves.  God demands of individuals that they love Him first, but that they love one another also (Matthew 22:37-40).  A man who is concerned with keeping himself in the love of God will obey God’s command to love his fellow man.  As already noted, his motivation for such obedience is his own relationship with God (Philippians 2:12).

Fourth, it is the responsibility of the church to address the problems (sins) that each individual faces in light of his responsibility to God.  The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).  The church is the instrument that God uses for making personal application of His word in the lives of each individual and ensuring that such individuals remain faithful to Him (Acts 20:28).  This means that the church has the authorized role of resolving society’s ill on a long term basis through the teaching and preaching of the message of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20).  Because the church has this primary role, and because the eternal salvation of the individual is at stake, there are physical consequences that ought not be resolved for individuals who refuse to obey God’s word and maintain fellowship with the church (Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15).

Fifth, the government has no authority to interfere with the church’s efforts in this regard and government social welfare constitutes interference.  When the government provides assistance to individuals who will not prioritize God in their life, making their personal salvation of utmost importance, the government undermines the consequences that God desires for these individuals to suffer as a result of their disobedience to Him.  The sole role of government is to punish the evil-doer and to support those who do what is right (Romans 13:1-6, 1 Peter 2:13-14).  The Christian has the obligation to support and be obedient to government in these areas, but beyond that, a Christian’s involvement in supporting government undermines God’s plan for man’s salvation.

The church has a divine obligation to teach personal and individual salvation through emphasizing the priority of the individual’s relationship with God!  Any and all efforts that deemphasize that relationship as being first and foremost, undermine God’s plan for man’s salvation and cause souls to be lost.  The Emerging Church’s emphasis upon political social involvement where man’s physical concerns are placed as a priority over man’s spiritual concerns is such an effort.  Let us resolve to maintain a theocentric (God-centered) perspective as opposed to an anthropocentric (man-centered) one and may God help us to place Him in the highest place within each of our lives.  Society will be blessed in our so doing.

Works Cited

American Humanist Association. Humanist Manifesto II.  22 May 2009 <http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II>

Bell, Eric Temple. in H. Eves. Return to Mathematical Circles. Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1988.

Biema, David Van. “God As a Postmodern.”  Time Magazine. Sunday, December 09, 2001.  15 May 2009.  <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,187579,00.html>

Bingemer, Maria Clara.  “A Post-Christian and Postmodern Christianism” in Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity, and the Americas.  Florence: Routledge, 1997.  Pp. 83-94.

McKnight, Scot. “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.” Christianity Today 51.2 (Feb. 2007): 34-39. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 15 May 2009 <https://ezproxy.stedwards.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.stedwards.edu:5000/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23914494&site=ehost-live>.

McLaren, Brian D. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2006.

[1] See Jody Apple’s article in this volume.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Emerging Church

Abortion is Murder

Just a few weeks ago (January 22, 2013), we observed the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade case that has opened the doors to the ungodly act of abortion. Nevertheless, the emotions still run high over the multitudes of murders that doctors have committed in the past four decades. Roughly thirty percent (30%) of all pregnancies today in America are ending in abortion. Nevertheless, just because our nation may legalize something, this does not make it morally right in the eyes of God. I believe the Bible teaches that abortion is indeed murder for the following four reasons.

First, abortion is murder because a baby is human life. The fetus in the womb of the mother is not animal life, vegetable life or plant life. It is human life. Children in the womb of their mother are special objects of the love and concern of God Almighty (Ps. 139:13-17). In fact, God spoke of Jeremiah as he was in the womb of his mother: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5). The same is true of John the Baptizer (Luke 1:41).

Second, abortion is murder because it transgresses the “Golden Rule.” Jesus plainly declared, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). How would anyone feel if our mothers aborted us before we could even voice our opinion? Would we want a doctor to kill us, as if we are in the womb of our mother, just as poor innocent children are slaughtered every day?

Third, abortion is murder because it contradicts the deepest and most basic human instinct of protecting our offspring. As a father, I would literally die for my children if necessary. I know many fathers and mothers would say the same. Only those who allow Satan to influence them so severely will lose this “natural affection” (cf. Rom. 1:31).
Fourth, abortion is murder because it is primarily rooted in selfishness. The facts declare that 93% of all abortions occur for birth control. Less than one percent occurs for victims of rape or incest.

Yet, the good news today is that one may find forgiveness, even of the sin of abortion. It does not matter where you began, but what you become. We have all made mistakes (Rom. 3:23), but God can bring good things even out of bad decisions for those who repent and confess their faults.

I would like to add one final thought—although I disagree passionately about the issue of abortion, I do not approve of murder and violence in any way. Protesting such immoralities does not give anyone the right to commit violent acts (i.e., bombing abortion clinics), even when we disagree with the sanction of our government concerning such things. The way to approach such immorality is not with violence, but with victory in Jesus. Jesus gave us a great example of how to deal with such issues—we protest through our teaching and connecting with people. We show them the right way to live by living a life of faith in Jesus Christ. We are to be “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:28). Let us all strive to live moral lives rooted in the gospel of Jesus!

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Abortion is Murder

The Lord Shall Rule Over You

The Lord Shall Rule Over You

In Numbers chapter thirteen the children of Israel have been led to the border of the Promise Land of Canaan. Twelve spies have been sent out to scout out the land. Two of the twelve (Joshua and Caleb) returned and said “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it” (Numbers 13:30). Yet the other ten said that there was no way that they could defeat the people of the land and take possession of it. They saw the people as giants and themselves as “grasshoppers” (vv 31-33).

In chapter fourteen the people grumbled and complained and said, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt” (vv 1-4). Who would that leader have been? Not Joshua, because when he and Caleb tried to convince them to move into and take it, that surely the Lord was with them, all the congregation sought to stone them to death (vv 6-10). Forty years later the only men still alive to cross over into the Promise Land were these two brave men whose council the children of Israel rejected.

Joshua would lead the people in their conquest of Canaan and they said to Joshua, “All that you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go” (Joshua 1:16). And they did, but the very next generation did evil in the sight of the Lord (Judges 2:10-11). No less than seven times through the period of the Judges the children of Israel would go through a process of sin, servitude, sorrow and supplication, and salvation.

One such cycle occurs and the people restored under the leadership of Gideon. After the victory of Gideon and his 300 over Midian the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us” but Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.” Yet the children of Israel would not listen and following the fifteenth and final judge Samuel the people got what they wanted. “Appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations,” the people cried. God told Samuel “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:7).

Now before we are too hard on the children of Israel and their foolishness let us take a moment and look at our own lives. We want leaders who will give us what we want. What we “need” is for the Lord to rule over us and submit to his leadership! We want leaders who will make us comfortable and give us what we want. The problem is that neither those human leaders we elect, nor we ourselves, apart from the Lord’s guidance, know what is truly good for us (Jeremiah 10:23).

We want someone to rule over us but on our own terms. Jesus addressed this attitude in His day by asking those who claimed to be allowing God to rule over their lives by asking “And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” And He is still asking us the same question today. See for far too many we “want what we want” and reject that which we need.

May God help us to submit to His Word and His will, with the proper heart of humility and gratitude; and let us serve Him and each other faithfully till we take possession of the spiritual Canaan Land of Heaven. Oh how sweet it will be to hear Him say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

Posted in Tim Dooley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Lord Shall Rule Over You

Jesus Provided Alcohol?

Many have tried to justify the consumption of beverage alcohol based upon the Gospel account of Jesus turning water into wine in the John 2:1-11. Let us begin to answer this question with the Biblical definition of the word wine. In the New Testament, “wine” is translated from the Greek word oinos. This is a generic term for the juice that comes specifically from grapes, either fermented or non-fermented. The entire context of where oinos is used will dictate whether fermented or non-fermented is meant. Just like our English word “cider,” which can be either “hard” (alcoholic) or just plain cider – non-alcoholic, it all depends on how it is used.  The same principle is true of “wine” in the Old Testament. Please read the following passages and answer the questions for yourself. 1.) Isaiah 16:10 – What comes directly out of wine presses? Plain grape juice or fermented grape juice? 2.) Isaiah 65:8 – What is found inside a cluster of grapes? Fermented juice or unfermented? 3.) Deuteronomy 11:14 – What is “gathered in” when the grapes are harvested? Grape juice or alcoholic wine?

We have established the fact that the Biblical word “wine” can sometimes be used in a generic sense (either fermented or unfermented), but that still does not answer the question as to whether Jesus made an alcoholic beverage when He turned the water into wine in John Chapter Two. As was noted previously, in order to establish which use of the word applies in a certain passage, the entire context needs to be taken into account – not just the immediate context (same chapter / book), but the broader context must be accounted for. In the Biblical context in which Jesus lived and in which the Wedding Feast at Cana took place, it would be a sin for one who, like Jesus, is a Jew to consume alcohol or to give his neighbor alcohol. (Habakkuk 2:15-16).

We know that Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life – never transgressing a single, solitary commandment under the Law of Moses. 1 Peter 2:22 “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth…” Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin…” These inspired statements are false if Jesus provided alcohol to the guests of the wedding feast. Neither did Jesus sin here nor did He tempt others to sin. James 1:13 affirms that fact. “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Therefore, we can know assuredly that Jesus did not turn the water into alcohol.

Yet, some make the objection that the immediate context gives the impression that Jesus did provide alcoholic wine. They quote the “governor of the feast” in John 2:10, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now…” It is assumed by some that the phrase “well drunk” refers to the guests being inebriated. That assumption does not consider the possibility that “well drunk” refers to the quantity they had consumed rather than the effect (drunkenness) it had on them. They had apparently consumed enough grape juice that their sense of taste had become dulled. The “governor of the feast” was simply noting the unusual circumstances in which the host had brought out the good quality wine after all of the lesser quality wine had been consumed.

Posted in Jack McNiel | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Jesus Provided Alcohol?

Neglect

Can We Neglect Our Souls Salvation?

There is no doubt to the Bible student, that the majority of people in the world will be lost (Matthew 7:13-14). This means that these will not so act as to “save themselves” by obedience to the primary principles of the Gospel, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism (Acts 2:38-40), or else that they will so neglect the interest of their souls, by failing to remain faithful in living the Christian life (Romans 12:1-2; 2 Peter 1:5-11).

We are sometimes our own worst enemies, simply because of our neglect. The Hebrew writer said, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip” (Hebrews 2:1). He then asked, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation . .?” His rhetorical question actually states that we will have no way to escape, if we neglect and ignore the salvation offered in the Gospel! The salvation of our soul should be the greatest importance to every individual in the world (Matthew 16:26).

WHAT ABOUT YOUR SOUL?

Do you think, in your neglect, that the Father in Heaven will make an exception in your case, and save you in spite of your wicked life? (1 John 2:15-17). Do you think, in your neglect, if you do not fear God and keep His commandments He will save you anyway? (Acts 10:34-35). Do you think, in your neglect, that you can take care of the affairs of this world, without living for God, and all will be well with your soul? (Luke 8:14). Do you think, in your neglect, that you can place God down your list of priorities, but that He will bless you fully? (Matthew 6:33). Have you been fooled into thinking, in your neglect, that you will obey the Gospel some day, but that you have an abundance of time to do so? (James 4:13-15). Have you, in your neglect, been thinking like Felix about “righteousness, self- control, and the judgment to come,” in that you tremble but do not obey your God? (Acts 24:24-25). Do you realize, in your neglect, the deceitful nature of sin? (Genesis 3:1-6; Hebrews 3:12). Do you think, in your neglect, that your ways are just as good as God’s ways, and that your thoughts are equal with His? Please get your Bible now, and read Isaiah 55:8-9. I urge you to neglect your soul no longer!

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Neglect