Emerging church critique or stereotyping by a radio star?

John MacArthur is an American christian with a significant radio ministry, 'Grace to you'.  He is currently critiquing the emergent church and you can see part 1 and part 2 here.  I have mentioned before that I think christians should welcome critique from within and without but it does raise some Qs as to how to respond when the feeling that the critique is more like criticism, which is unsubstantiated/un-evidenced/unexperienced/general in nature etc...

Dan Kimball, responds very graciously to some of the points raised by MacArthur in this post: Please don't stereotype the emerging church

When I read John's comments I think here is someone who is trying to be helpful in good intentioned but bad researched ways - seriously I think this dude is trying to help, is probably confused, puzzled, worried that these emergent types are drifting off from theirmoorings or busy dismantling their foundations (from reading part 1 it would seem he has similar concerns with those who don't agree to inerrancy, charismatics and seeker services). 

The former conservative in me knows that one of the callings/charge almost of anyone with any authority in the modern conservative church is to stop people straying from the heard, to keep on the straight, narrow and true and that means agreement with structures/forms/theology that has arisen during modernity.  To move away from these forms can therefore look distinctly like a move away from God, the faith etc, afterall if these forms are now symbolic of our christian identity to change them is I guess in his eyes, maybe, like renouncing them. 

I also think there is a problem in terms of language, mystery for instance is the room for me to admit that God is God and I don't understand, know all the answers etc.  That to someone else can look fundamentally flawed, heh we've got the bible, it tells us the answers, or at least the answers that we see through the interpretation grid we use.  Language therefore becomes something of a problem, not just the words but the understanding of those words.

Now I don't want to make this about polarisation, I am not saying modern bad, post-modern good, mystery good, insight/answers bad... cos that would be just dumb - major HT to neo conservative evangelicals and their whole engagement with apologetics for instance, what a great model of really trying to engage with the philosophicals at the time using the grid they had to use...

So what I guess is my response:

1) avoid fighting ire with ire - can we be loving to this guy, let's not start up any new divisions, any fresh attacks on personalities, grumbles about how we're better etc - let's just say some of what he says is probably true to some degree for some of us at some times in some places.  I liked Dan's post, it was not about attacking John but trying to deal with some of the issues he raised and provide evidence/examples from his own experience of emerging church.

2) an excuse to engage in dialogue - we could all drop John a line, say heh thanks for your thoughts, i appreciate you caring but this is my good experience and these are some of my worries about EC.  In other words we have some common ground in that we have no doubt at some stage thought/wondered about EC, the good, the bad and the fluff :).

3) examine ourselves - just what our those EC flaws /blindspots- we ain't perfect so this is a good chance for us to examine ourselves and say, for example, hmmm maybe we just aren't very good explaining ourselves (perception is reality)?  Maybe we are too enamoured with x but not with y, maybe we grumble hear about this or react against that instead of learning/building/reconstructing?  It might be a faulty critique but it doesn't stop us asking with the Psalm writer for God to search us, God to shine in his light and reveal darkness within us, mistakes we are making, etc

4) practice forgiveness - some people will i am sure fine this critique hurtful/personal/annoying etc.  It would be easy to dislike/disassociate ourselves from this person and grumble about dinosaurs/dictators/dipsticks and why they should shut up or ship out to their own religion... or we could recognise that we are all brothers and sisters in christ, all pretty dumb and as part of this great big God family are called to bare the marks of suffering servanthood, love and compassion.  That might mean forgiving people who don't know what they are doing, even if they haven't asked for it and are infact trying to kill us off...

5) Deeper church not just broad church - as Dan suggested here is a chance to live beyond our fears and invite each other to share our spaces - we need a deep church, one that encompasses ancient, medieval, modern and post-modern, we need to practice differences within a common. tradition not conformity.  As God does new things we should not forget the old things, we need both doctrines of immediacy and mediation.

Your thoughts...

That's what I think, but I'd love to hear from you..?

Comments

[andrew (tall skinny kiwi)]

good advice on truth wars, paul. i am looking forward to reading the book.

[David]

I agree, good stuff.
I still keep coming back to "Can modernity work with post-modernity?" Sometimes I think yes and sometimes, like after this, I think 'no'.
Of course "Sometimes" is probably the correct 30,000ft answer (to everything!).

And I completely agree that it's good to be the bigger person and step back from the critism and see what could have prompted the attack no matter how unfounded it may be. Do we need to do a better job of communicating to those who don't understand for example?

A critique will give room for dialogue, and a criticism will only give room for argument (if anything at all). That being said, maybe the best defense is to walk away from criticism and engage in critique.

hmmmm. What uncharted waters we are embarking on! Gotta love it.

[molly]

Me too. (the book, I mean).
:)

[dh]

I think, why John on some points was a little overboard, that MacArthur has some legitamate concerns. Why is NT Wright looked at positivly by many EC's, why does McLaren support him and other false doctrine teachers, why does McLaren and others deemphesize many things within modern Christianity that are beyond the term modern as opposed to adding to the emphesis's of the modern, etc.? I think much of the blame for the disconnect between modern and post-modern Christianity are the messed words and explainations given by the post-modern Christians of EC and thereaction to words made by modern Christians. missional vs. discipleship, Sanctification vs. Faith with works, Salvation vs. salvation (with Sanctification as part of that), etc. Faith vs. faith, stating that moderns don't do much for the poor when they do, etc. I think EC needs to make statements rejecting things that go against Scripture rather than accepting the dialogue. I think discussion is different from acceptance where EC's and post-modern feel they are one in the same thus promoting this "disconnect". I feel many times in the promoting of discussion people indirectly condone behaviors and views that are contrary to Scripture. (Paul we have discussed those issues in the past.)

[Paul]

thanks Andrew, book sounds like fun. Thanks for your positive post on it - I'm hoping it connects us all a bit better to the Truth...

[Paul]

David, really I think the bigger Q is can the church work with the church? can we remember that we share a common history/tradition that has its starting place as Jesus is Lord...

Maybe we should learn how to talk to each other first as a people of a common faith, diversity within a common tradition, before we try to talk to people of different God faiths or of faith in no God...?

[Paul]

DH, I agree we could all do a lot better, particulary if we dropped the attitude of wrong/right, false/true, better/worse etc...

It's pretty meaningless labelling really, postmoderns are not better christians they are just one kind/variety/flavour and within that its gonna be a mix of good, bad and indifferent just as it is in every stripe of the church...

So I'm with you, let's be humble, open, honest and loving, rejoice in our common shared ground and the Lord Jesus who we are all trying to follow...

[dh]

Well, I would say to a point to drop the "wrong/right, false/true, better/worse etc." but if people support NT Wright and others who say things that are contrary to Scripture or by their statements give the implication thereof then what choice dowe have? Shouldn't we respond like the Apostle Paul a point it out or sit back and not address or state it in such a way that it downgrades the importance thereof?

P.S. I'm not 100% against NT Wright. I like his defense of the resurrection but everything else seems totally off or downgrades what God truly says from His Word.

Just like post-modern Christians point out wrongs in modern Christianity to the point they reject modern Christianity why not be honest and point out what is consistent and inconsistent with God and His Word. The same goes for modern Christianity and its lower emphesis on the poor, missional and the like. Why can't we all just be post-post modern Christians and accept the theology of the modern with the 100% combined emphesis that each the modern Christian and post-modern Christian adhere to. Salvation of souls by Faith in Christ alone and the proper Belief in the nature of God and the "cultural war" is just as important as helping the poor, environment, missional, etc. and viceversa. Until the Body of Christ understands this combination 100% the Body will continue to be divided unecessarily.

[Paul]

DH, personally i have nothing against modernity nor indeed do i wish to set up post modernity as something better - it's not for me about advocating a different position on the same line, but somehow looking above the line and searching for the will/wish of God... so i agree with you, let's please not make it a versus :)

[Toni]

I'd say a key issue is that there isn't a huge degree of commonality between various parts of the EC. One of the most sound EC participants that I've found is Leighton Tebay who is largely theologically conservative. Yet in the various EC conversations I've had over the years, some of the participants are determined to deliberately mis-represent scripture to support the extreme point of view.

It may well be that MacArther has met some of the less 'respectable' elements, and therefore his comments naturally don't apply to the broader picture.

To me, a major part of the problem is that humans with to 'tribe up' and polarise. I believe that God is a whole character, and not fragmented into modern and post modern, liberal and conservative, catholic and protestant. On one level the demoninations are actually useful, as they allow the church to manifest the highly complex character of God. If we could set aside our distrust and embrace each other across the gaps while permitting variety in the non-essential areas then the strength of the church would be unimaginable. It seems to me that God is starting to do this in some places: certainly at a local level here in Bicester, Oxfordshire, but I've heard of it happening elsewhere too. Maybe this is the unexpected way for something more than revival to take place?

Sorry about the essay.

[Paul]

Hi Toni, no need to apologise (well it is inherent british characteristic ;)and thank you for your comments.

I agree with you in that I think there is a common tradition across all denominations that actually we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. Even disagreeing is no bad thing, I don't want conformity, that would make for a pretty bland faith expression...

I think a lot of people are waking up and saying that we cannot continue to live like are denomination is the only true form of church, we need to reconnect with our common tradition and shared heritage and learn and listen from each other...

I am sure there are some wild elements of the EC but even those more conservative parts should, i feel, be open to critque... we have much to learn and much opportunity to practice grace and love :)

[dh]

You said "I am sure there are some wild elements of the EC but even those more conservative parts should, i feel, be open to critque.." but are the "wild elements" truly open to critque? I personally don't think so. That is why they are quick to ridicule anyone who disagrees with them as being "ultra-modern, fundamentalist, ultra-evangelical, etc.). Couldn;t be that the conservative parts are actually doing it right for the Lord?

Another thing, "I've had over the years, some of the participants are determined to deliberately mis-represent scripture to support the extreme point of view", I too have abserved this and really it appears to be in the majority within EC that believes this.

Another thing what actually are the "non-essentials"? I think that is what the EC does try to make theessentials the non-essentials. (I think MacArthur acurately represents what those essentials are. However, I disagree with him on "gifts and Holy spirit", his view against Joyce Meyer and other women leadership to name a few". However, High view of Scripture (in the theological sense not the heart sense) IS essential and is being attemtped to be eroded by those who project too much narrative onto the Bible than is actually there.

[Paul]

DH the sad thing I feel is that many parts of the church are not open to critique - they operate as closed shops who are quite happy to offer critique but in no mood to receive it...

It is a great loss because instead of healthy dialogue where we can all learn, grow, be stretched, spurred on etc we instead run the danger of unhealthy dialogue, spiritual pride, division and conflict...

So I think we are left a choice - I choose to be open to critique, to welcome it and encourage those who I encounter to do the same...

I am glad that you can disagree with John or some issues DH, just as I am glad that you and I can agree to disagree on some things too - it does not stop us being christian brothers who can commune with one another and love one another...

As for your question on essentials well i blogged about my take on them in the good news story here:
http://paulmayers.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/12/the_good_news_s.html

[dh]

I think Paul it is a matter as to what extent we agree or disagree and how much of that is truly consistent with Scripture. We must have a "high view of Scripture" and a too narrative take than is actually in Scripture is very dangerous.

I guess the reason I posted before your last post is that I seem to see more critique of the modern Christian rather than recognizing the correct statements of John MacArthur. I appreciate you are open to critique as I am. However, the EC or post-modern Christian seems, in a majority case, never acknowledge that the majority of Evangelical IS correct theologically and a majority of praxis IS living for Christ. Are the problems within where the theology isn't followed? yes but EC and Post modern Christianity wants to attempt to change the theology that are actually foundations of the Christian Faith. They want to downgrade certain emphesis's that actually have no bearing on praxis.

Also when one critques something they need to back it up with the Word of God. If thecritque is inconsistent with God's Word than actually thecritique becomes an attack. I acknowledge that some EC is great and any critique of that by Modern Christianity becomes, appears or is presented as an attack. However, much of the theology that is so-called "critique" is actually an attack. This is not a rebuke of the people because I love all people but this is an acknowledgement that we need balance in this dialogue and need to not always pursue change for change sake.

As an example analogous to this discussion we are having. There is a balance between "helping the poor, pursing community, missional, etc" vs. "Salvation of unbelievers to become believers, Sanctification of the believer, Disciplship of the believer, Evangelism and sharing the Gospel by though, word and deed of the unbeliever, etc." Why can't BOTH be acknowledged and encouraged and pursued by ALL Christians equally rather than rebuking or falsly accusing Modern Christians for only pursuing "saving souls"? There are tons of Christian literature in the Modern Christian community that goes beyond "saving souls" and/or "moral issues" but EC seems to only focus on that. In the literature I have read of EC and post-modern Christianity I would like to think there is some working and acknowledgement of the need to do modern christian, Evangelical things that God says in His Word to do but I don't see that as an emphesis or importance.

So Paul, what is of greater importance in the EC, post-modern Christian community; critique of the modern Christian, Evangelical community or the openess to critque when certain theologies or beliefs of the EC, post-modern christian community are inconsistent with Scripture? I don't claim to know all the answers or claim I'm not open to critque because I am it is just that I see the essentials being downgraded. Pursuit of souls accepting Christ as their Savior with the praxis thereafter by way of community of Believers, Sanctification, discipleship,etc. are things that should not be downgraded in emphesis. We should help people to live for Christ fully as Believers and help people by sharing the Gospel so they don't experience physical/spiritual death and thus obtain physical/spiritual life.

[Paul]

Hi DH, I'm not so sure much of the EC is anythig but orthodox, here's a post by Dan Kimball on a book that is coming out by someone who has been to 12 EC's

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/12/from_someone_wh.html

[dh]

Well this is a book about 12 churches and we also have to look at the predispoisition of the person going to the twelve churches as well. This still doesn't change the wording of McLaren and other leaders of the EC who, maynot be fully heretical, can give the impressionof that even within the proper context. If people take it out of context true onecan point to those who perceive it out of context. However, one still who writes the books, leads and brought to greater prominence the EC still has a responsibility BEFORE writing and speaking to say, write and lead to not promote ambiguity. People are quick to say how it weird for people to take it out of context McLaren but the phrasiology and even conclusions that aren't definitive on certain issues make for the observations that I feel ARE correct about EC. Maybe those churches within EC who aren't being heretical and are orthodox need to rethink being apart of the EC where the leaders continue to voice things that are not consistent with Scripture or promote an "unsure sttitude" about things that are sure in Scripture?

The responsibility for people taking it out of context is the person saying not the person observing or hearing what is said or read. Before a leader writes or says something they need to anticipate how will it be interpreted and before wirting or speaking change it to how they want it to be understood ort else the talking from both sides of the mouth will continue and further ambiguity will continue. Muchcan be solved by this type of excersize than the one presented by the EC. One talks about attitude of the EC. I know many modern Christians in EC churches that continue to be indirectly looked down apon in churches based on certain views. These are people who want to be part of these churches but in the end go todifferent churches. This seems to be an oxymoron and I strongly believe will lead to the demise or short lived nature of the EC/PM type church.

I think I also might have presented a little too strong my position. Much of my disagreement with EC is the lack of recognition of the importance for Salvation of souls from eternal death to eternal life by Faith in Christ alone, views or lack of position on certain sins, lack of the use of terms that would give greater clarity like Salvation, Sanctification, Evangelism, Discipleship, Holiness, Second Coming of Christ, etc. for terms that are not even mentioned in Scripture (not that they are bad or wrong to be used because they aren't) or promote ambiguity in the Body of Christ like Missional, Praxis, Community rather than Body of Christ, Holistic, narrative, mystical, etc.