no more emerging

I have come to an abrupt halt in my quest to understand the "Emergent Conversation". My reference point has be "the best book yet on the Emerging Church", i.e., Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger.

In previous posts, I noted that many of the concepts are solid and helpful although I didn't see how the Emergents found something new. It felt a bit to me like they think they are on some cutting edge revolution that the Church has been missing. I don't see it. The things I have gleaned from the book were good but not new.

Separately, I have been frustrated with the many internet rants against Emergents. I found the charges to lack kindness, most didn't seem to be based on fact, and most were about superficial, arguable points as opposed to core doctrine.

But now I'm sad to say that I have to join the ranks of those saying that the Emergent view is heresy. To be honest, I couldn't even finish the book.

The heresy (any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance) begins with this by Dwight Friesen.

I'm more convinced than ever that we don't have a clue about Christianity. I'm not an orthodox Christian anymore; I'm not a Protestant. The kinds of questions we are asking are very different from the questions asked at other times. Is Christianity necessary? Whose religion is it anyway? What does it mean for us to incarnate Christ, to live redemptively in a materialistic world?

The last question is fair. What does it mean for us to incarnate Christ, to live redemptively? Excellent. The answer is found in Scripture and it's a fine thing to pursue. But unless Friesen has redefined Christian, the earlier statements are heretical. If he's not orthodox, nor does he know if Christianity is necessary, why does he ask the last question?

Simon Leeds continues the assault on our faith.

We are very Christocentric, which means that while we recognize God's presence in other religions and in people of no faith, we still see Jesus as the most perfect revelation of God and therefore the surest route to God.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life! (Jn 14.6) He did not say a way, a truth, and a life. Salvation is found in no one else (Ac 4.12). The surest route to God? How about the only route to God?

Bolger and Gibbs add their approval to the heresy and quote Pete Rollins.

Traditional apologetics offer a reductionistic approach to God, ignoring Christians' spiritual and communal way of living in favor of a cognitive approach to truth. ... "In contrast to orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxis (right practice), we advocate believing rightly and practicing rightly. In other words, one should speak and act in a manner that respects others and transforms their existence. In this way, we have a moral agenda, but it is a minimal one that focuses more on the how of belief and practice than the what."

What are they saying?!? Is the right way to believe more important than believing the right thing?

Bolger and Gibbs say that "Jesus did not push for a decision in order to promote a hidden agenda." That's correct, His agenda was not hidden. But the context of the statement was that He did not live a purposeful life with intentional relationships and encounters intended to demonstrate and proclaim the Gospel. This is false.

According to Brad Cecil, they are looking for "a place where you can feel the Kingdom of God, and we don't think we need to save everyone for this to happen." If he's speaking in Calvinistic terms meaning that we humans cannot make someone come to Christ, he is correct. But he is not saying this. In context, he is saying that they simply want to live the Kingdom without the intent of redeeming someone from the kingdom of darkness. I suspect this is not what he means but as I have found throughout the book, many absolutely false statements are made in an attempt to sound cutting edge.

Bolger and Gibbs then use Doug Paggitt to help redefine the Gospel.

What is the gospel? and How does one convert? Pagitt believes that the old view perpetuated the idea that changed ideas (conversion) lead to changed behavior. Pagit believes, however, that a changed life (conversion) leads to changed beliefs. "We are much more involved in inviting them to live differently than to believe differently."

These are not mere words. This false understanding of the Gospel flows to real behavior. Pete Rollins states ...

We have been actively engaged with other faiths through the evangelism project. Evangelism has an important role but is seen as a two-way process designed to open others and ourselves to God. ... We de-emphasize the idea that Christians have God and all others don't by attempting to engage in open two-way conversations. This does not mean we have lapsed into relativism, as we still believe in the uniqueness of our own tradition, but we believe that it teaches us to be open to all.

Bolger and Gibbs clarify this confusion with further heresy.

Their evangelism project is the reverse of most forms of evangelism. They visit people of other faiths and spiritualities and allow themselves to be evangelized in order to learn more about other walks of life.

Sorry guys - what good thing can you possibly mean by saying our faith is unique but since other faiths have God we invite them to evangelize us? They attempt to fix things by later saying that we can learn from other cultures. I agree to that. But what they are saying and doing is teaching that we learn, nay, are evangelized, by other faiths.

Spencer Burke's community is described as follows.

[we] learn from faith traditions outside the Christian fold. There is a Buddhist family in their church. As a community, the church visited a Buddhist temple. They participated in a guided meditation with this family. Burke celebrates the many ways God is revealed. He recognizes that the Spirit has been with these people all along. The community celebrates other traditions, and they see them as beloved children of God.

Ben Edson helps pile it on.

We had a guy from Mancehster Buddhist center come to Santus1 ... and talk about Buddhist approaches to prayer. We didn't talk about the differences between our faiths. We didn't try to convert him. He was welcomed and fully included ...

Karen Ward sealed it with this,

I no longer believe in evangelism. To be postevangelical is to live our lives in Christ without strategy but with the compassion and the servant posture of Jesus Christ. We do not do evangelism or have a mission. The Holy Spirit is the evangelist, and the mission belongs to God. What we do is simply live our lives publicly as a community in the way of Jesus Christ, and when people inquire as to why we live this way, we share with them an account of the hope within us. We are to love one another, and that creates its own attraction. Taking care of the sick and the needy creates all the evangelism we need.

I like how finitum non capax infiniti filed this under "Say What?!?" My thoughts exactly. While I want to say that I understand what Ward is driving at (i.e., words are not enough, we need to both live and speak the Gospel), I cannot believe a responsible Christian leader would say this. Perhaps the words slipped out but I'm sure Bolger and Gibbs consulted her before publishing. And, regardless of what she meant, it feels irresponsible for Bolger and Gibbs to put this out there like that.

To be fair, there are some stand outs in this crowd. Andrew Jones ...

We will always be giving an answer to those who ask. And we will always be seeking to live in such a way that makes people ask. And we will always be exporting our living environments to be closer to those people God puts on our hearts. But what's different? I would say that power and prayer are heightened, as is a sensitivity to God's timing and people's process. And experience precedes explanation rather than following it. Please don't let anyone say that it replaces it, because both explanation and experience will always be present."

Bolger and Gibbs add

One must demonstrate the faith with both actions and words. ...we find that it is impossible to do any kind of mission without apologetics of some kind.

Well no kidding! But it is too little too late. There is clear error and much contradiction.

I've had enough. If this is what the Emerging Church is about, in spite of the good stuff I thought I found, the Emergent Conversation is heresy.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, Emerging Church, epistemology