Skip to main content

Emerging Church Bashing

Roger Oakland of Understanding the Times International is presently touring NZ in order to expose the evils of the emerging church. Steve Taylor, a prominent Kiwi proponent of the emerging church, responds in an exemplary manner here.

It saddens me when people pour their time and energy into fighting imaginary foes within the church instead of concentrating their energies on God's mission. The emerging church is not really a thing that can be attacked but a broad label that describes a number of different attempts to do church in a way that connects more effectively with our society for the sake of the gospel. I disagree with a lot of 'emerging' stuff, but find some of it very helpful, and I am wholly sympathetic to their project. I have yet to find one who isn't willing to listen to other points of view. I have no sympathy for petulant hate mongers who generate division in the church and attack those who are trying to constructively engage with a lost and broken world (see Titus 3:9-11).

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You already know that I consider the whole church to be emergent - regardless of whether they call themselves emerging, or not. I think that the holy spirit makes it so, by definition.

    When I've gathered my thoughts on this, I'll try and communicate them to you.

    Thanks for openly sharing your disappointment with the opponents for their attitudes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't stand Roger Oakland style 'engagement' with emerging church. The waste of precious time saddens me too. However, there may indeed be elements within emerging church that are well worth taking the time to compassionately, respectfully, fairly, but penetratingly critique and sometimes even refute. We need to be careful not to let 'haters' provoke us into swinging in the opposite uncritical, undiscerning direction. To theologically and theopraxically critique the streams of emerging church is not a distraction from God's mission, but an essential aspect of fulfilling it in that we need to be self-critical as the church in regard to our enculturated gospel engagement with the lost. If we wittingly or unwittingly compromise the essence of the gospel in our effort to effectively communicate, we end up being counterproductive to Christ's mission.

    I too 'have no sympathy for petulant hate mongers who generate division in the church'. But we still need to be open to the possibility that some of the emerging church's engagement with our lost and hurting world is not always indeed constructive. It's not pleasant to contemplate, but some of it may be ultimately destructive. Let's keep the conversation truly open to even this unpalatable but perhaps realistic eventuality.

    Thanks for your winsome warning against overreaction and sheer wackiness. The recent book 'Why We're Not Emergent By Two Guys Who Should Be' is an evenhanded and exemplary critique that's worth reading. It's not by any means the last word, but it's the right way to quite clearly disagree I think.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Dr Charles Stanley is not a biblical preacher

Unusually for me I was watching the tele early on Sunday morning and I caught an episode of Dr Charles Stanley preaching on his television program. Now I know this guy has come under some criticism for his personal life, and that is not unimportant, but it is also not something i can comment on, not knowing the facts. His preaching is however something I can comment on, at least the one sermon I did watch.

He started off by reading 2 Timothy 1:3-7. Which is a passage from the Bible, so far so good. He then spent the next 30 minutes or so talking about his mum and what a great example of a Christian mother she was. Now nothing he said or suggested was wrong, but none of it actually came from scripture, least of all the scripture he read from at the beginning. It was a lovely talk on how Stanley's mother raised him as a Christian despite considerable difficulties and it contained many useful nuggets of advice on raising Christian kids. All very nice, it might have made a nice…

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.