Seems we find even more good stuff to read on the Emerging/Emergent %*&$ment. If we keep beating this horse we’re gonna have us a dead horse on our hands.
Phil Johnson, longtime book editor, writer, etc. and assistant for John MacArthur, put together a seminar last year at the annual Shepherd’s Conference in LA. I met Phil back in 1987 at one of the conferences and have been really impressed with his body of work. His blog is on the right column of mine and is called Pyromaniacs. You gotta love that name!
Remember, the %*&$ment that is not a movement has probably changed some since Spring of 2006.
So here is the text of Phil’s seminar. Phil Johnson on the Emerging Church
December 11, 2007 at 10:26 am
I see this as one view that results from understanding the ECM in a particular way.
If you read particular people like McLaren and such and then generalize and say this is what everything emerging is about, you’ll come to certain position, like this one. But if you talk with and read about other Gospel-centered, Bible-preaching, God-glorifying people and churches that are doing things that could be labeled “emerging,” you’ll come to other conclusions.
So can we try to be more charitable to one another?
December 11, 2007 at 11:08 am
Wes, I recognize that there are orthodox men who may be EC types, though apparently running away from the label. But, I still have a concern about you and others who continue to cite and use Rob Bell who is unorthodox. I just do not understand trumpeting him and his works and leading people to put his unorthodoxy in their minds.
Of course if I am a seminary student or a prof, I understand reading unorthodox writers. There is a purpose there. But youth and regular church folks? That seems reckless to me.
Look again at the quote above from Bell and his wife and tell me why our sheep need to be reading in the stream of thoughts of a man who says,
from above:
“It had worked for me for a long time. Then it stopped
working.” The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—
“discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine
fiat. “The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We
want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.” “I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out
the Bible,” Kristen says, “that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it
means. And yet I feel like life is big again-like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in
color.”
Last, I hope I have not come across as uncharitible. Please forgive me if I have. I only want to interact with the issues. We may disagree on the issues, but that does not mean I do not love you and others with whom I disagree.
Let’s discuss, argue and debate with vigor and passion. But if we do, that does not equate with being unkind, it least it does not have to.
December 11, 2007 at 11:20 am
“It’s a movement that is purposely foggy and amorphous, fluid and diverse—and most in the movement want to keep it that way. That ambiguity is a major aspect of the emerging subculture’s love affair with all things postmodern. The lack of clarity and the absence of any clear consensus in the movement is also the main strategy for self-defense against critics. No matter what you criticize within the movement, practically the first response you are going to hear is that “not everyone in the movement holds that opinion.” And in most cases, that’s probably true. It’s a movement that loves ambiguity and diversity and despises clarity and organization.”
Wes, your point sounded a lot like Johnson’s quote above. I’ve said this before on other posts, but I still maintain that this is not truly a movement that will last. It is catered to a specific generation, and is, like Johnson stated, just another morphed version of modernism.
December 11, 2007 at 1:43 pm
There are many places where I agree with Johnson and others where I disagree. Its a thorough article and he certainly has done his homework. I appreciate that he mentioned some valid points, because I know that is difficult for those who really disapprove of the movement.
Even if the movement does not really last, I think that the things he mentioned as valid points (the ec resisting professionalism and big-business churches, hypocrisy and narcissism, right-wing ties, failures to reach the outcasts and counter-culture) I think THESE things may last and become new emphases and values for the traditional church. And I think that would be a good thing.
December 11, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for your questions on Rob Bell, Les.
First, you may be referring to the series I did at youth group on the Nooma videos. As I have said before, I don’t think I interacted with those videos enough, or did the best job I could in pointing out misleading things in them. I still think they have value, as discussion starters, etc., but it is important to interact with them thoroughly.
Second, I think it is important for us to understand what Bell is saying and why it has gained such a hearing. I think Bell has received such a wide and rapt audience because he is saying some incredibly important things. He is speaking into a culture (Grand Rapids) where belief has become boring and a matter of memorizing confessions and he makes it about real life.
Third, Bell is not theologically orthodox on all points, (view of hell, universal atonement, etc.) but that does not mean we can’t learn from him. I think it is important to learn to interact with popular teachers in this way. If we completely dismiss Rob Bell, we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I would love to interact with people about Rob Bell and others, but if someone is able to grant legitimate points that the man makes (or any emerging church leader for that matter), it quite hard to have a conversation. Does that make sense?
December 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm
In that last sentence, I meant “if someone is NOT able to grant legitimate points that the man makes…”
December 11, 2007 at 4:56 pm
This is the kind of charity that I am talking about: being willing to point out good insights when we find them, and pointing out error when we find it.
December 12, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Wes,
I have only seen 2 of the Nooma Videos and to tell you the truth, I could find very little that would concern me from a doctrinal point of view. But later as I began to think about them I realized that I was viewing them from a solid Biblical foundation with solid absolute truth as my foundation. But what about someone who has not been born again? Would they ever come to a true saving faith in Jesus by viewing these or listening to other EC teachings? Would an unsaved person ever hear the Gospel, that they are sinners in need of a Savior, if all they listened to or were exposed to were EC ideas? And by enlage, the EC is filled with young/new believers and many unsaved people that will most likely never hear the Gospel if all they listen to are EC ministries and leaders. I think that it is reckless to expose young/new believers or unbelievers to teachers that do not believe there is truth in Bible or can’t even discern if homosexuality is good or bad. What say you?
December 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I think the Nooma videos could be good conversation starters in the right setting.
No, you definitely would not want to show young, new, or unbelievers these videos and leave it at that.
No, I would not recommend a young or new believer to read Rob Bell’s books, despite the fact that I have gleaned many good things from them.