It used to be that the movement called "the emerging church" was so new, so changeable, and so variegated that it was hard to define. I would agree with Mark Driscoll that it has now gelled into three major camps. These "Three R's" provide a rubric we can use to define this phenomenon in contemporary theology.
1. The Relevants
These are pastors and churches that are evangelical but innovative. They are trying to make the church relevant to American society in creative and artistic ways. Into this camp I would put Erwin McManus (Mosaic) and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz). They are evangelical and for the most part theologically sound, but with an emphasis on contemporary styles of outreach.
2. The Revisionists
These pastors and church leaders are truly “emergent.” Unfortunately, what is emerging is nothing new at all, but the old, theological liberalism and neo-orthodox ideas used to revise evangelical dress. Into this camp I would put the generous Brian McLaren, and also Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids.
Bell drinks at the wells of N.T. Wright for his view of biblical authority (which is to say that the words of the Bible are not authoritative in and of themselves, but somehow God mediates his authority through scripture). Another quirky thing about Anglican Bishop Wright is that he seems to defend substitutionary atonement and yet deny the doctrine of imputation (imputed righteousness and the like). As a matter of fact, he quite redefines justification and righteousness to include a works aspect (“boundary markers” of those who belong to the faith, he calls them). This allows him to defend (from the Bible, in his mind) the Anglican split-personality of being Protestant in doctrine but Catholic in practice (practices like infant baptism). This stuff severely messes-with certain Presbyterian groups in the US.
Wright is most recently in the spotlight for denying the popular notion of heaven and emphasizing the resurrection. Probably he would subscribe to what some call “soul sleep” for the saints. We do not go to heaven when we die. This world will be our home. But, Wright is an evangelical that defends the historical Jesus and the historicity of a literal resurrection against the infidels, so bully for him.
Back to Bell's inhalation of Wright. Again, the Bible is not authoritative, but God is. That’s the old neo-orthodox dodge to avoid having to submit to a final authority. And because of that theological presupposition, Bell expounds scripture from a “trajectoried hermeneutic.” Here, I can break that thing down in 25 words or less. The Bible doesn’t actually teach certain things, but it starts us out, and if you take the trajectory outside the leather covers, then you can wind up at a “post-modern” conclusion and still be correct.
Okay, you missed that so let me make it real. Is homosexuality sin according to the Bible? Not absolutely, if you accept a trajectoried hermeneutic. Because Jesus started us out on a road of tolerance and acceptance in the Sermon on the Mount, and while he was not able to state explicitly that he was okay with it (it would really bust the wig back on those old Pharisees), we can follow the trajectory down to today and explicitly gather that he would condone it now. Admittedly, the Bible doesn’t lead us to that conclusion, but the “trajectory” that started in the Bible does. (Sorry. I know it sounds like a shell game, but sometimes that’s what emerging postmodern theology is.)
Perhaps this also plays into Bell’s penchant for reading the ideas of later rabbinical Judaism anachronistically back into his interpretation of the New Testament. Even though the rabbis got it wrong. Even though Paul says they were blinded. But it’s as good an excuse as any for repainting the Velvet Elvis.
What about McLaren? He drinks not only from Wright, but from radical, clearly un-born-again scholars under the spell of the likes of Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan. This group sometimes trajectories right over neo-orthodoxy and the old liberalism, and goes all the way back to the practices of the monastic orders and the "church fathers." This definitely doesn’t pass the smell test. It seems like all the forty or fifty-something former fundamentalists like McLaren are having an emerging identity crisis.
1. The Relevants
These are pastors and churches that are evangelical but innovative. They are trying to make the church relevant to American society in creative and artistic ways. Into this camp I would put Erwin McManus (Mosaic) and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz). They are evangelical and for the most part theologically sound, but with an emphasis on contemporary styles of outreach.
2. The Revisionists
These pastors and church leaders are truly “emergent.” Unfortunately, what is emerging is nothing new at all, but the old, theological liberalism and neo-orthodox ideas used to revise evangelical dress. Into this camp I would put the generous Brian McLaren, and also Rob Bell of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids.
Bell drinks at the wells of N.T. Wright for his view of biblical authority (which is to say that the words of the Bible are not authoritative in and of themselves, but somehow God mediates his authority through scripture). Another quirky thing about Anglican Bishop Wright is that he seems to defend substitutionary atonement and yet deny the doctrine of imputation (imputed righteousness and the like). As a matter of fact, he quite redefines justification and righteousness to include a works aspect (“boundary markers” of those who belong to the faith, he calls them). This allows him to defend (from the Bible, in his mind) the Anglican split-personality of being Protestant in doctrine but Catholic in practice (practices like infant baptism). This stuff severely messes-with certain Presbyterian groups in the US.
Wright is most recently in the spotlight for denying the popular notion of heaven and emphasizing the resurrection. Probably he would subscribe to what some call “soul sleep” for the saints. We do not go to heaven when we die. This world will be our home. But, Wright is an evangelical that defends the historical Jesus and the historicity of a literal resurrection against the infidels, so bully for him.
Back to Bell's inhalation of Wright. Again, the Bible is not authoritative, but God is. That’s the old neo-orthodox dodge to avoid having to submit to a final authority. And because of that theological presupposition, Bell expounds scripture from a “trajectoried hermeneutic.” Here, I can break that thing down in 25 words or less. The Bible doesn’t actually teach certain things, but it starts us out, and if you take the trajectory outside the leather covers, then you can wind up at a “post-modern” conclusion and still be correct.
Okay, you missed that so let me make it real. Is homosexuality sin according to the Bible? Not absolutely, if you accept a trajectoried hermeneutic. Because Jesus started us out on a road of tolerance and acceptance in the Sermon on the Mount, and while he was not able to state explicitly that he was okay with it (it would really bust the wig back on those old Pharisees), we can follow the trajectory down to today and explicitly gather that he would condone it now. Admittedly, the Bible doesn’t lead us to that conclusion, but the “trajectory” that started in the Bible does. (Sorry. I know it sounds like a shell game, but sometimes that’s what emerging postmodern theology is.)
Perhaps this also plays into Bell’s penchant for reading the ideas of later rabbinical Judaism anachronistically back into his interpretation of the New Testament. Even though the rabbis got it wrong. Even though Paul says they were blinded. But it’s as good an excuse as any for repainting the Velvet Elvis.
What about McLaren? He drinks not only from Wright, but from radical, clearly un-born-again scholars under the spell of the likes of Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan. This group sometimes trajectories right over neo-orthodoxy and the old liberalism, and goes all the way back to the practices of the monastic orders and the "church fathers." This definitely doesn’t pass the smell test. It seems like all the forty or fifty-something former fundamentalists like McLaren are having an emerging identity crisis.
Two points I can agree with them on. On deconstruction:
A. The world is changing (Duh!)
B. The old methods are not working (Thursday night visitation and the like)
But I disagree with their reconstruction.
3. The new “Reformers”
They are contextual and controversial but confessional (Westminster Confession mostly). They want to put the text in the context of culture. Into this camp I would put Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Their goals: stay biblically faithful and be culturally fruitful. They are a lot like group one, except that McManus is Arminian and Driscoll is Calvinist. Capiche?
