The folowing is an excerpt from my upcoming article on the Emerging Chruch and Southern Baptists:
I “had thought” my exposure to Mars Hill marked my introduction to the emerging church only to realize later that Donald Miller’s bestselling book Blue Like Jazz had already brought me into that world. But not so fast. The taxonomy troubles where the emerging church is concerned go deeper. Gibbs/Bolger insist that Mars Hill is not emerging but Gen-X. About such churches Gibbs/Bolger contend:
“. . . to generalize, the church services were characterized by loud, passionate worship music directed toward God and the believer (not the seeker); David Letterman-style, irreverent banter; raw, narrative preaching; Friends (the popular TV series) type relationships; and later, candles and the arts. The bulk of church practice remained the same as their conservative Baptist seeker, new paradigm, purpose-driven predecessors; only the surface techniques changed.”
So who is right? What we can say is that Redeemer Church in New York, Mars Hill in Seattle, and The Journey in St. Louis have been spectacularly effective at reaching precisely the demographic the heroes of the Gibbs/Bolger type churches insist will only respond to sufficiently postmodern immersed and shaped ministries. Note the implied warning from Gibbs/Bolger:
“We both [Gibbs and Bolger] believe the current situation is dire. If the church does not embody its message and life within postmodern culture, it will become increasingly marginalized. Consequently the church will continue to dwindle in numbers throughout the Western world. We share a common vision to see culturally engaged churches emerge throughout the West as well as in other parts of the world influenced by the Western culture.”
Gibbs/Bolger contend that young people now in their 20s and early 30s are thoroughly postmodern and will not respond to ministries shaped by “modernity.” Fine. How might we then identify ministries that “get it” and thus can help stem the ebb tide of dwindling numbers in the West? How about 5000 plus urbanites in their twenties and thirties streaming to church demanding Bible preaching on the right and left coasts of America and 1600 in three locations in St. Louis? No, say Gibbs and Bolger. Yes, says Stetzer. Perhaps we should let the Stetzers and the Gibbs and the Bolgers duke it out on the nomenclature front. However the semantics “emerge,” we already see much that can inform evangelical church planting.
A dispute between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann of yesteryear with a little bit of Paul Tillich thrown in might help us here. Bultmann complained to Barth that he had no notion of changing the gospel message. His only aim was to translate the gospel message into contemporary language. Barth responded that he had no problem with that, as long as the translator remembers his first task—accurate comprehension of the original to be translated, in this case, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is just at this point that the mischief enters in. Remember that Bultmann considered the question of the bodily resurrection irrelevant to modern men and women. Barth expected that once God got Bultmann out of the ground and to a standing position, the relevance of the bodily resurrection would likely lock in for Rudolf in short order. For his part, Tillich discovered that the word “God” had lost its relevance and so he proposed an alternative—“the ground of our being.” Oops! That didn’t catch on did it?
Once you set yourself up as the relevance police, the put-up-or-shut-up test becomes operative, nicht wahr? When your perceptions and prognostications don’t pan out, you find yourself running around frustrated that folks keep finding relevant what you just told them they couldn’t and shouldn’t. So, are Redeemer, The Journey, and Mars Hill emerging or not? The jury is out, but what we do know is that these communities of faith are concretely being found relevant by exactly the demographic deemed most resistant to church and gospel in the Western world. It is a fact that kids are dropping out of church in droves (especially seeker and purpose-driven churches) when they reach their twenties. But churches like Redeemer, Mars Hill, and the Journey attract them! And they do so not with less Bible and theology compared to seeker and purpose-driven churches already ensconced within the Southern Baptist Convention, but with more!
10 responses so far ↓
andrew jones // Mar 8, 2007 at 10:33 am
looks like we are releasing articles on the southern baptists and emerging church about the same time. cant wait to read yours . .
Joe Thorn // Mar 8, 2007 at 10:50 am
Good words mark, and needed at this moment.
Dr. Mark DeVine // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:16 am
Thanks Andrew and Joe. My website administrator will have to help me get the full article (forthcoming in Midwestern Journal of Theology) up on my site as a pdf. I am too stupid to do it myself.
Gary // Mar 8, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’m am mulling over the statement “you find yourself running around frustrated that folks keep finding relevant what you just told them they couldn’t and shouldn’t.” Is this disagreement over methods or subject?
Since we know the methods of “Purpose Driven & Seeker Sensitive” as compared to “Emerging” are different - which is the better method. I read in print & digital that both are having success. Could it be that both are succeeding in the field they are working? I serve in what is popularly called a traditional church, hymns with a few praise chorus’s, pews vs chairs, a choir vs praise team. I also serve in a college town where I have been able to start a few relationships with this 20 year old group. I am interested in this discussion becasue the future is here along with these people & Jesus is relevant & on His way. Thanks for this discussion.
Dr. Mark DeVine // Mar 9, 2007 at 8:11 am
Gary
I do believe that there are certainly many ways to faithfully contextualize the gospel effectively. Surely anyone who has served oversees recognizes this.
But my point with Gibbs and Bolger is this. They believe (1) that the phenomenon they call emerging has a superior grasp of the postmodern cultural landscape. (2) Ministries that don’t “get it” as they do will be found increasingly irrelevant. (3) People in their 20’s and early 30’s (especially in the cities) are thoroughly postmodern and will not respond ministries stuck in the “modern” world. But, alas, Gibbs and Bolger put Mars Hill (and by implication Redeemer and The Journey) in their “modern” category. Nevertheless, these ministries are concretely and spectacularly being found relevant by the demographic Gibbs and Bolger said would not do so.
I guess I am acknowledging Gibbs and Bolger as the best source for understanding the phenomenon they call emerging but the vibrant growing ministries I have cited suggest that Gibbs and Bolger “don’t get” what the call postmodernism.
Ariel // Mar 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I think these are excellent observations. Is it possible to take “postmodern” culture too seriously (in the ecclesiological, semantical, epistemological way you describe)? It seems as if the answer is yes and if Gibbs & Bolger may be a case in point…having painted themselves into a corner, as it were.
Jim Knight // Mar 13, 2007 at 10:14 am
you want authentic-you have to be willing to suffer for something bigger than you. Call philosophic stages of development throughout history whatever you want-truth exists whatever men declare about it. I don’t mean to be brutal, but the authenticity and relevance that all ages of people want for their lives is manifest most fully at the point at which they are willing to suffer and not be the beneficiary of that suffering. Christianity transcends the moralism and social gospel substitutes in this particular area because it contains objective reason for my suffering. When I say objective, I mean outside of humanity, not just outside of myself
Dr. Mark DeVine // Mar 13, 2007 at 10:48 am
Ok Jim.
It sounds like somebody has been cheating, sneaking around reading the Bible!
Kirby L. Wallace // May 20, 2007 at 2:26 am
Jesus came to earth, and . Let me condense this: “Jesus Preached XYZ…”
From that point on, there have been an endless stream of people preaching ABC, and GXJ, and RBS, and you name it.
Whatever you choose to call it, if it is not XYZ being preached, it is NOT the Gospel.
You may feel free to call it “emergent”, or “post -modern”, or “relevant”, or just about anything you’d care to call it. I don’t really care. Make up a good, clever, catchy name and go to town.
In the end, there is one Gospel. It is called THE Gospel. It calls for repentence of sin and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of SIN and entrance to Heaven and eternal life.
That people would not endure sound doctrine… That kids are “dropping out of church in droves”… that the Gospel is a hard message… All of these things Jesus said quite plainly would happen.
So here we are, shocked and wringing our hands over something Jesus said “must needs be.”
The narrow gate is, and always has been, narrow. Trying to make the narrow gate wider is an excercise in futility…
nextz77 // Apr 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm
f we all go with the truth of God, and preach according to it, there would be/will be much rejoicing in the presence of the Angels, and there would be/will be less blog entries about the number of “converts” a particular “pastor” has on a given day.
Leave a Comment