27 responses so far ↓

• Charles Churchill // Mar 15, 2007 at 10:35 am

  Professor DeVine,
  This part of your article resonated with me: Surely the claiming of Lordship
  over the entire universe harmonizes with the Scriptures’ witness to the God of Abraham,
  Isaac and Jacob. But does not the New Testament also recognize a certain legitimization
  (albeit perhaps proximate and provisional) of a distinction between secular and sacred
  realms in the time between the times in which we exist—Paul in Romans 13 and 1
  Timothy 2; Jesus’ “render to Caesar”; and the almost New Testament wide
  comprehension of the church, not as “Christianizing” the world as such, but as a
  witnessing persecuted pilgrim (resident alien!) people headed for that City of its lasting
  citizenship?

  I think I’ve commented along these lines in a previous post of yours, but not quite so specifically. The problem that I have with both the evangelical movement and the emerging movement is that there seems to be an inability (even an unwillingness) on their part to accept a complicated God. God has chosen different structures in this world to represent Him, and each of them do so in different ways. He makes Fathers and Sons, the Church, the Government and each of them show us some aspect of God, but each of these cannot perform the same actions in the same ways and expect God to be glorified by it (and this will effect how He will bless/curse the endeavor, sometimes both at the same time) We seem to see “goodness” as a universal thing. What is good for the family to do, is good for the church to do, is good for the State to do (think education), but this is not so. I think about Genesis when Abraham tells Isaac to lay down on the altar, I think this is the sort of thing that only a Father could command a child to do. God has not vested in a church the type of representation of Himself to stand in such a place. Does this make sense (even loosely). It seems to me, that the evangelical movement failed in that they limited what evengelism meant (preaching and door to door and that’s it) and that the emerging movement wants to bring Christianity everywhere, but without thought to the symbols God has given us and the constraints he ha placed upon them.
  Anyway, I’ve taken up too much space already. The article is good, I’m a little over half way through it.

  Take care,
  Charles

• Mike Brown // Mar 15, 2007 at 12:25 pm

  Really Good article. I am Encouraged that the difference between “emergent” and “Emerging” are discussed, and How theologically relavent the emerging church truly is. God Bless

  Mike

• brad brisc // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:34 pm

  Very nice review of the most significant emerging literature. Appreciate the acknowledgement of the shortcomings of Carson’s book by only focusing on the revisionists.But with the revisionists he is of course right in raising serious concerns. I still find Stetzer’s categories very helpful. Thanks for making this available and thanks again for being a part of the conversation in SBC circles.

• Josh Collins // Mar 15, 2007 at 8:29 pm

  After hearing your ubiquitous plugging of this article in your Theology 2 class, I was glad to finally have a chance to read it. I found very interesting your acknowledgment concerning the IMB’s church planting strategies of the last decade or so finally appearing here in America. It seems, however, judging from certain reactions within the SBC already, that what was good for those other countries isn’t good enough in America where we apparently know how to “do church” already. I hope though, that your article will cause people in our convention to take a deeper look before wholesale anathematizing such a broad and diverse movement as this.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Mar 16, 2007 at 6:51 am

  Southern Baptists on the home front largely could not see first had what was happening overseas and mainy just celebrated the good news regarding evangelism, baptisms, and church plants. As America becomes more and more a mosaic of sub-cultures, missional thinking becomes crucial to effective church planting at home. I predict that Southern Baptists will change in helpful ways over time and may even become leaders in North American misisonal church planting. Let us hope!

• Brad Brisco // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

  Dr. DeVine

  I too hope as you say “that Southern Baptist will change in helpful ways over time and may even become leaders in North American missinal church planting.” I so hope you are correct, most days however I am not optimistic. It seems as those who are speaking on such issues are still viewed with suspension, but if you and others in your position will continue to engage others maybe there is still room for optimism.

• UberGoober // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:27 pm

  A couple of questions:

  1. Is it the absense of consistent theological agreement that makes the emerging/emergent movement suspect (the non-Stetzer/Driscoll/Patrick/Keller types)?

  2. What do you make of the broad range of theological positions held within the SBC? Aren’t Southern Baptists united (at least ostenisbly) on mission and not theology?

  Just trying to sort it out. Thanks.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Mar 17, 2007 at 11:25 am

  Brad and Uber

  When Southern Baptists change, it looks messy. A new generation is resing and some of the youngest boomers like myself are working to be a bridge for the future leaders who will inevitably change the denominstion.

  Yes Uber, much of the tension arises from the doctrine-disinterested and/or doctrine averse stream of the movement.

  Baptist have a full-blown confession, the Baptist Faith and Maessage 2000 that functions at the institutional level. However, churches enjoy (or sometimes suffer from) automymous freedom and this makes for a rolicking path to consensus of the lack thereof within the SBC.

• Ariel // Mar 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm

  a rolicking path to consensus

  I would definitely drink to that!

• Andrew Conard // Mar 23, 2007 at 8:24 am

  Dr. DeVine - I enjoyed reading your well thought out comments on the emerging movement within Christianity. I am a United Methodist pastor with a continued interest in the emerging movement. I gained from your article both a better understanding of the emerging movement and Southern Baptists. Thank you.

• Andrew Conard // Mar 23, 2007 at 8:26 am

  Dr. DeVine - After looking closer at your bio, it is also nice to make a Kansas City connection.

• Scot McKnight // Apr 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm

  A fair, honest, and reasonable assessment of the emreging movement, Mark. Thanks for your work onm this and your attempt to make this whole thing intelligible in your world.

  One point: I keep saying the EM is not “theological” but what I mean is that it is not “defined by a doctrinal statement.” Of course, everything can be explained as theological — I do this all the time myself. But, trying to define EM by theology will simply permit the whole thing to evaporate in your hand.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:34 am

  Thanks Scot.

• Jason Powell // Apr 8, 2007 at 1:42 pm

  Honestly, I’m not over-impressed with the numbers of the three churches you mentioned (Mars Hill, etc). As a thrown out megachurcher myself the temptation to go to an age related church “where people really get me” is strong….and dumb. Your article floats around the fact that these churches are last remnant “attractional” models birthed from conservative leaders, and as such, they will surely attract a large percentage of those who feel at odds with the irritants of the boomer church vision.

  All this said…they simply aren’t “emerging churches”. The honest reason mainliners took a dive (and now currently most conservative evangelical churches too) is that if your praxis sucks…it’s a fair bet it’s born out of a given communities understanding of its doctrines.

  This is where the so called “left-wingers” in the EC get all the flak. They are willing to look at things like atonement and realize that its not just the look of things which have to be culturally relevant, but the meaning of things as well. Gen-Xers for the most part…sorry SBC…will not be the foundation of emergent churches. They will be the collected enclaves of disatisfied boomer churches who feel comfortable together (not really a bad thing….just not emergent).

  My hope for the EC has less to do with what is “emerging” as to what is “converging”. The reformation was great, except it fractured the body of christ like hand grenade. Lets be honest each of the main traditions in the pr0testant (and Catholic…and Orthodox) have wonderfull “nuggets” 0f truth and wisdom enbedded in a truck load of crap (read: tradition, beuracracy,…doctrine). I think what we are seeing is a rising up of young leaders willing to reach into multiple tradtitions to extract the best from what two thousand plus years of faith have to offer.

  For instance take Greg Boyd (author of “Myth of A Christian Nation). Here’s a quick rundown

  1. declined to submit the the religious right and had the biblical clout to be right about not doing it (lost 1000 members of his church)

  2. Views Christus Victor as a better overarching metaphor for atonement

  3. Is radically concerned about the poor and other justic issues (as an aspect of THE GOSPEL)

  so is he/their church….conservative, anabaptist, liberal, lutheran? None of the above and all of the above….I think God is drawing the wise back together to move forward missionally in our pluralistic world. Nothing else is going to make it in my obviously not so humble opinion

  whew!

  Jason

• Matt Christenot // Apr 8, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  Jason,
  I think your “not being impressed” with the numbers at churches like the Journey and Mars Hill, proves perfectly what Dr. Devine is saying. The level to which you are impressed has absolutely no impact on the fact that these churches are impacting people. The point is that people are finding relevant precisely what you are thinking that they shouldn’t. It seems that humility would suggest that telling a church of 7000 in the middle of Seattle that they “don’t get it” is a bad idea. But I guess lumping yourself in the “the wise” would seem to indicate that indeed humbleness was not your intention.

  Sorry Dr. D, if this is too harsh for your blog.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 10, 2007 at 7:33 am

  Matt and Jason

  I do hope that there will be some limit to how nasty we get.

  Jason
  You can find posts on Greg Boyd in my archives. I think Boyd is inconsistent when he talks about appropriate and inappropriate relationships between the church and politics (he only criticizes more recent conservative involvement; he either praises or remains silent regarding the deep involvement of the church re: abolitionism; women’s suffrage; child labor laws; human rights; the civil rights movement). See my post on Boyd in the archives. I think Richard Land’s new book, Divided We Stand, lays a much more consistent view on such matters while retaining serious concern for protecting the church’s message from undue political entanglements without abandoning the church’s duty to act and speak prophetically on matter of social justice.

  Recently a set of numbers came out indicating that self-identifying conservatives give more money and do more work re: helping the poor and working for social justice than do self-identifying non-conservatives. Apparently, somebody is talking a better game than they are practicing.

  I do welcome the ecumenical impulse of your comment. We do need to explore common ground and be poised to learn from others. What I refer to as the “left-wing, doctrine-averse” stream within the EC typically strike me as disinterested in the history of theology or just very ill equipped to discuss such matters. Brian McLaren’s sloppiness in this area is not helpful.

  I do not claim to have a crystal ball regarding the future prospects for the churches I have highlighted to expose Gibbs/Bolger weak on “the relevance test.” We do however see the median age of these churches rising.

• bbaltrus // Apr 10, 2007 at 9:36 am

  If you get chance listed to the Easter Service from Mars Hill (http://www.marshill.org/teaching/download.php?filename=MDQwODA3Lm1wMw%3D%3D). I think that the criticism of emerging leaders not believing in the Bible is not very well researched. I listen to plenty of sermons from emerging churches, and I understand that some have a narrative interpretation of the Bible, but they do not dismiss it or reject it.

  If you listen with your ears, and see with your eyes, you may get the point that being missional is just another form of evangelism. We take seriously Jesus call to make disciples. We chose to do it by engaging in peoples lives, and loving them into following Jesus Christ. We find this to be much more successful than telling people they must repent or the will not live after death.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 10, 2007 at 10:46 am

  bbaltrous

  I do find a very impressive love for the Bible and faithfulness to the Bible, at least within the doctrine-friendly types such as Mars Hill, The Journey, Acts29 generally. In my article I note that Gibbs/Bolger deny the emerging tattoo to Mars Hill, and, by implication, to Acts29. So when I notice an applaud some of the things I see in Acts29, does that have anything to do with emerging. That is partly what my article is about.

  I welcome and admire the EC commitment to indigenous, relationship-shaped communities. I do believe that we sinners must be converted to Jesus Christ and that his does involve (one way or another) being confronted with the gospel claims–repent and believe. While the path to that conversion may prove long , meandering and gradual, I do not believe that conversion itself can be gradual as such.

  Scot Mcknight, who comes to emerging from a very different direction than I do, seems nevertheless to recognize the great gospel-deficit in much of the emergent conversation. I suspect that this comes from the protest dimension. What was rightly eschewed from the churches folks found inadequate is swallowing up dimensions that were just simply orthodox and christian. A Baby-out-with-the bathwater- situation.

• Jason Powell // Apr 10, 2007 at 5:16 pm

  Dr. Divine,

  I appreciate your reply….Matt…not so much. Anyways…I wasn’t using Boyd as an example to open the debate on his Kingdom vs Nation idea. I was more leaning to the fact that I find him to be very cutting edge in how he looks at the breadth of Christianity to form his theology…not just everything south of Edwards, or Wesley.

  As far as the Baby and the Bathwater, most emergent types I know who discuss the nature of the gospel aren’t lacking from any deficit at all. The largest contention with traditional conservative theology has to do with the Gospel as mental assent to faith propositions vs actually acting and loving like Christ. Truly this is the conversation I have with pretty much every EC’er I know.

  I think my concern as of late with SBC is the fact that they spew slander at EC’ers out one side while coveting the numbers of presumed Emerging Churches like Mars Hill (which I still don’t think are emergent or postmodern….can I get an amen Dr. McKnight?) Honestly I think the bigger issue is that most EC’ers don’t take much stalk in Calvanism while the SBC seems to be being overrun by it. I find this odd as my SBC I grew up in was beyond proud to be Arminian. The times they are a changin’. Again thanks for the civility of your response. I get my ire up pretty much anytime Mars Hill gets mentioned. Their pastor strikes me as being quite rude, proud of his sinful tongue, and intolerant of people who disagree with him. I mean really, you can’t even respond to his blog unless you’re an insider. Shoot, who doesn’t like hearing from people who only think and act like you do?

  I never make any friends….haha

  jason

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 11, 2007 at 7:47 am

  Jason

  Part of the difficulty in the conversation about emerging generally is that interested parties are coming to the dialogue from such different and often opposing standpoints. These different standpoints are often predictive of a number of things: what we are prone to be defensive about; the direction of our research: who gets default sympathy versus who is received with suspicion. Such things make it hard to hear what others are saying.

  Let me be transparent about some of my biases. I am a cradle (no yet to the grave) Southern Baptist. I grew up in that denomination, was educated in its institutions, have served in a variety of ministry positions within the denomination(minister to youth; pastor; missionary to Bangkok, Thailand; and seminary professor). Southern Baptists are my family. This does not mean that cannot criticized my denomination but it does mean that when I detect a mean spirit regarding Southern Baptist I have a natural defense mechanism that kicks in.

  Over time, Scot McKnight and I realized that we shared many positive views of certain parts of the EC, but we also clashed a bit here and there. At some point it became. clear to both of us that where tension of disagreement arose, it was often traceable to “that from which we were recovering,” Scot from fundamentalism and me from liberalism.

  I suspect that some of this is at work in your reaction to my paper. You show certain signs of the “protest” element in EC that Carson has highlighted and even McKnight has acknowledged. Thus, you are poised to read positively everything you consider EC and defensive about critique. I have told McKnight that I view his treatment of Brian McLaren as parallel to my treatment of evangelicals or Southern Baptists. His response is that he has been critical of Brian McLaren and that is true, he has. But the overall thrust is always to highlight McLaren’s contribution and his provocative insights. I on the other had do criticize evangelicals and Southern Baptists and mega churches etc. But I cannot be dismissive of “my people” they way you do. We are coming from different places and neither of us will be able to talk the other out of our basic stance and instincts I suspect.

  On Mars Hill and EC. McKnight does accept Gibbs/Bolgers’ denial of the emerging tattoo to them and in my paper come very close to accepting that as well. Have you really tried to understand my paper. If you do you will understand how little it means to me when someone says “Mars Hill is not postmodern.” One key to my paper is the denial that anyone knows exactly what this word means. What is clear is that folks who want to claim that they know what PM means and then go on to grandiose descriptions of what church must look like or what communities of faith had better do if they are to be found relevant expose themselves to the “numbers” test. Do you get that?

  On loving people and living like Jesus. I am all for it. Go do it. By all means. Periodically a prophetic call to right living crops up as a protest against “worldliness’ of various kinds and I simply welcome that. But pursuing that is different from venting anger about a mega church that fired you or asked you to leave. McKnight is a member at Willow Creek and sees no contradiction between that and his advocacy for EC. Neither do I.

  Driscoll. Many of us who are consider ourselves “friends of Mars Hill,” share concern about some of Marks antics, but consider him more a friend that a foe where advance of the gospel is concerned. At least that is my view. Note however that I reference Redeemer church and The Journey positively in the same connection and these two churches and their pastors quite different from Driscoll.

  As for the slander spewing, that is a very bad thing and it goes in both directions. Is it slander to mention Driscoll’s embarrassing episodes? No it is not. And I do not think that it is slander to raise concerns about the published views of Brian McLaren and Doug Padgitt and others who influence EC. I believe that both of these men are moving in a direction that will become harder and harder to fit within anything recognizable “christian” in any historic sense. And the reason, I suspect, is as traceable to very weak hermeneutical training and seriousness where the Bible is concerned than anything else. McLaren’s wimp-out on homosexual behavior is not credible for anyone expressing a desire to nurture ‘biblical” communities of faith as McLaren says he does.

  But note my quote from Dan Kimball. Nothing pleases me more that to discover unashamed orthodox and reformat ional conviction combined with seriousness about church planting within our cities.

• Jason Powell // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  Again, thanks for your reply. I to was born and raised in the SBC, and my parents are still there. Much of my concern lately has to do with the way the fact that for the last 15 years they have sat under a number of abusive pastors who, apparently, keep spouting the same jab “if you’d all just stop sinning we would see the church grow again” (or something like that). Real pharasee type stuff. It hurts and concerns me on many levels.

  You’re very right when you say that many are coming to the EC conversation from many points of view and it will be difficult to find common ground….but it always has since the reformation. My hope, as I’ve stated is that some of the fracturing work done by protestantism is going to be healed by the open dialogue present in the EC.

  I do think disagree that there is no-one who really “gets” postmodernism and what it means to be the church in this transition era. Stanley Grenz, John Franke, Leslie Newbigin, all in my opinion seem to grasp that the only viable place for truth to take hold and be nurtured is within community (ie: faith communities). That said, in a pluralistic environment those communities must be embedded as missionaries in culture (the whole “missional” side of emergent which is by far it’s strongest and best appeal).

  I still think though the work of good theology was not finished with Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, etc. The white elephant in the room, as far as I can tell, is the fact that we simply seem to keep ignoring the decline of all local branches of the church (liberal and conservative). This must be an orthopraxy following orthodoxy issue.

  We must be suspicious to some degree of the mega church (huge tangent…sorry…I’m running out of time). In an age of Walmarts and other conglomerates eroding the west….we must draw paralells.

  got to go…thanks again

  Jason

• ricky shipe // Apr 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

  Dr. Devine,

  I had the chance to listen to Brian McLaren here in KC last night as he lectured over the key elements of the emergent church. He mentioned (in a small point) that he foresaw an end to Platonism in our near future as a result of the advances in science through cell and genetic research.
  Do you have a response to this?

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 12, 2007 at 5:42 am

  ricky

  I do not know what he means and I have learned from experience that often, he does not know what he means either.

  I am a Christian not a Platonist. However employment of platonic categories are evident in the New Testament. We have already how fast and loose McLaren can deal with passages he does not like (e.g., those dealing with homosexual behavior or substitutionary atonement). One wonders what mischief his foreseen demise of Platonism portends.

• Jimmy Snowden // Apr 13, 2007 at 5:43 pm

  Dr. Devine
  You article was extremely helpful. I read it twice through and found it especially helpful the second time.
  I have two questions:
  1. Where would you place Donald Miller in regard to the three aspects of the EC?
  2. Rob Bell seems to be one of the most well known leaders in the EC movement (conversation)–Have you read any of his books? If so, where would you put him in regard to the three aspects of the EC?
  Thanks

• Matt Chrstenot // Apr 13, 2007 at 9:56 pm

  Jason,
  Sorry for the harshness. Sometimes when you type things late at night after a long day the filter gets removed and the art of nuance disappears. This has been an interesting conversation to follow. Perhaps I’ll have something more helpful to say next time.

  Oh the art of blog apologies.

• Dr. Mark DeVine // Apr 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  Jimmy

  HOw are things up in the Tundra?

  I cannot place Donald Milller with confidence. If forced to try I would guess somewhere among the more evangelicalish not–so-utterly doctrine averse Gibbs/Bolger types.

  I need to read more in Rob Bell.

  Enjoy Gordon-Conwell.

• jason powell // Apr 30, 2007 at 7:26 pm

  Matt,

  No apologies neccesary. I get heated at times too and it is difficult to hold a nuanced conversation in this medium.

  Blessings,

  Jason

Leave a Comment