Thesis Statement
The emerging
church views the current model of evangelicalism as outdated and ill prepared
to reach the present, as well as future, community of nonbelievers.
Introduction
The founders of
this movement come from all types of backgrounds, megachurch, post-feminist,
Southern Baptist, as well as conservative Baptist to name a few. Furthermore,
the number of writings concerning the emerging church is growing, with noted
authors Mark Driscoll, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell to name a few. The spectrum
of beliefs is almost as broad as the current evangelical movement now. In the
eyes of the emerging church, modern culture and evangelicalism are
disassociated; however, the emerging church seeks to bridge those two together,
oftentimes using the present culture to define biblical ideas and teachings.
The view of the emerging church as one of a post-evangelical stance, and many
would accept a postmodern one as well, is paramount to understanding where the
emerging church is coming from as well as where it is going. Last, the emerging
church, while having a varied stance from within a movement or completely on
its own, is determined to reform the modern view of “church” to the public body
that has been turned away by the seeker-friendly, conservative evangelical, or
megachurches.
Emerging vs. Emergent
Church
While these two terms are used
interchangeably by many scholars, this paper will use the term “emerging” with
reference to either the doctrine friendly stance held by some or the overall
movement, and the term “emergent” specifically in reference to those that seek
to change not only the church, but the current doctrinal stances as well.[1] These terms
must be separated for clarity because there are those within the Emerging
Church movement that would not associate themselves doctrinally with the
Emergent side. Another term that comes up is that of “journey”, “conversation”,
or “story”. These terms are all synonymously used to refer to the way the
movement has progressed, and continues to do so.
Mark Driscoll
and Tim Keller are two men who are Emerging but not Emergent.[2] “The
emerging church welcomes the tension of holding in one closed hand the
unchanging truth of evangelical Christian theology (Jude 3) and holding in one
open hand the many cultural ways of showing and speaking Christian truth as a
missionary to America (I Cor. 9:19-23)”.[3]
It is in this sense that Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, and others use the term
“reformission”, simply stated, a missionary within one’s own culture.
Reformission starts with a return to the true Jesus of the Bible, and then
moves on to engage the culture through the lenses of the Gospel, Culture, and
the Church. If any one of these three elements is missing, then this leaves one
of three flawed approaches: the para-church, liberalism, and fundamentalism.[4]
Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and
a host of others on the other hand are key proponents of the Emergent church.[5]
Two key aspects stand out with the Emergent church. The first is that they, for
the greater majority, are postmodern, and second, they are post-evangelical. Brian
McLaren describes modernism as the “institutional children of the era of Sir
Isaac Newton, the conquistadors, colonialism, the Enlightenment, nationalism,
and capitalism. Each denomination made sense of Christianity within the lines
and boxes of modernity. You might say they rewrote and rearranged the ancient
‘data’ of Christianity in a modern program, programming language, paradigm, or
framework”.[6]
While not all Emergent church leaders will state they are postmodern in the
whole, they at a minimum require that church practice and doctrine come into
question and the theologies that arose during the modernist era will not
transcend into the postmodern culture without serious shifts in either
application or relevance.
None of the
Emergent church leaders has an issue with the term “evangelical” in the sense
of the first century theological basis of Paul and John as it refers to salvation
from God through His Son, Jesus Christ.[7]
Their stance on post-evangelicalism comes from the modern application of the
term evangelicalism referring to the infallibility of scripture concerning specific
faith and practice; a concern for a personal salvific experience via Jesus
Christ, and an orthodoxy of doctrine presented in a standard of teaching.[8]
The issue is not the salvific experience; it is the specific doctrinal stances
and, for most, conservative theology brought about from orthodox teachings. This
is the main difference between Emerging and Emergent churches- one begins with
the bible and then studies culture arriving at a proper contemporary
application of hermeneutic (Emerging); whereas, the other begins with
contemporary culture and takes that experience and applies it to the bible
(Emergent).
Emerging and Emergent
Theology
Following
the Reformation, a revival occurred within Europe that spread into America and
the English colonies. England began sending out missionaries and during the early
modern mission movement, was the leader, but by the early 1900s had begun to
lose ground due to evolution and natural history. Germany fell under the spell
of higher criticism. America soon took over as the king of Christendom, and as
such, no one questioned the national Christian culture; however, that has
changed within the last twenty to thirty years. The leaders of the Emerging and
Emergent Church movement recognized this and began to look for ways to reach
those who have come out of Christian-era America, but are not Christian.
Recognizing this need has affected Emergent and Emerging theologies.
Mark Driscoll states his displeasure and sincere concern over
many growing trends including the rejection of Jesus’ penal substitutionary
death; an eternal, literal hell; and the rejection of God’s sovereign knowledge
of the future (open theism) to name a few.[9] In responsive fashion, many Emergents struggle with the
evangelical theologies such as Theology Proper, Christology, Soteriology, and
Eschatology. Many of these Emergents are influenced by Walter Brueggemann, N.T.
Wright, Marcus Borg, Ched Myers, John Dominic Crossan, Gustavo Gutierrez, Joan
Chitister, and more.[10]
Bibliology and Hermeneutic
Emerging
Church and Emergent Church leaders differ widely in their stance and
application of the Bible. Driscoll points out that while his church, Mars Hill,
is emerging and missional in its practice, it will remain evangelical and
biblical in its theology.[11]
He further explains that a key focus of the Bible is to bring the gospel to
everyone who is breathing, and this theme drives Mars Hill Church.[12]
Driscoll then builds off this evangelical, biblical, gospel-centered
missiological approach using culture as a medium to reach Seattle. Most
Emergents would agree with taking the gospel to everyone, but they would not
agree with his stance on evangelical, contemporary biblical theology.
McLaren and a
host of other Emergents see the Bible as a narrative, with both a message and
method that must change from time to time and place to place in order to remain
truly the gospel of Jesus and about Jesus.[13]
Pete Rollins sums up the view of many Emergent church leaders by questioning
the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible as a single book with a
single message; instead, he holds that the Bible is a book with many
interpretive messages from many different voices.[14]
Furthermore,
many Emergents question the fundamental stance held by many evangelicals in
regards to biblical application. This leads many, influenced by Stanley Grentz,
to reject classical orthodoxy, including “the correspondence view of truth, a
rejection of objective truth, absolute truth, propositional truth, and the
inerrant truth of Scripture. This is done in favor of antifoundationalism,
relativism, subjectivism, constructionism, nonpropositionalism, Barthianism,
and fallibilism”.[15]
McLaren sees a Greco-Roman influence in Johannine and Pauline writings, which
is far different from his understanding of the Messiah in the Old Testament and
of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.[16]
This leads him to question many aspects of the New Testament. McLaren also
warns against using the bible as an ethics rulebook, stating that it lacks real
answers to many socioethical problems including psychological and political
issues, as well as pornography and basic human morals.[17]
This questioning of biblical content results in the Emergent liberal theological
stance.
Theology Proper
McLaren finds
that the God of the Old Testament, whom he names Elohim, is far different from the God
of the New Testament, whom he names Theos.[18]
Applying an Aristotelian model to Genesis 1, Elohim declares everything created
as “very good”, but McLaren points out that none of this is perfect in the
Greco-Roman mindset- rather, it is constantly changing and evolving into
something better.[19]
According to McLaren, this is because Elohim enjoys how the wild, dynamic,
story-unleashing goodness, with aspects such as unpredictability, danger, chaos,
barrenness, and darkness, whereas Theos carries a domesticated, static,
controlled perfection.[20]
Because
Emergents see multiple stories, Elohim’s story unfolds as a love story that
moves along from Adam through the Prophets and on into Jesus. However, Theos’
story contains the furious promise of eternal punishment, eternal hell, and the
complete destruction of this present creation.[21]
Because of this, Todd Hunter states, “As I have processed afresh our Story, I
have reenvisioned what it means to be a Christian, to be the church. Story
reseated all the bits- Bible, salvation, substitution, community- back into
their places with radically more powerful meanings”.[22]
Christology
and Soteriology
Just
as Romans 1:17 and “sola fide” was the cry of the Reformation, Mark 1:15 and
the gospel of the kingdom of God is the theme of the Emergent church. Essentially
that God has returned in order for man to participate in a new way of life with
Him, the cross remains essential, but the good news is not that he died but
that the kingdom is at hand.[23] Todd Hunter expresses his issue with the current evangelical
gospel message in that it is at the core reductionist and lacking the true
context.[24] Emergents like Dieter Zander see the gospel not as a way for
man to get to heaven, but for heaven to come to earth through the way believers
live and experience God.[25] From this salvific experience comes the journey, conversation,
or story that Emergents often mention. Driscoll disagrees, politely stating
that as one becomes saved and gets to know the glorified Christ, one learns to
be bold and confident in proclaiming Christ’s victory over Satan, sin, and
hell.[26]
Eschatology
McLaren argues that Revelation is
the product of Jewish first century apocalyptic literature, falling under the
umbrella of “literature of the oppressed”, which according to him is similar to
science fiction in the present in that the writer is using future themes in
order to change the present.[27] McLaren goes on to state that first century believers are
applying creative processes in order to explain that their view of Jesus was
right, but at the same time are being vilified by Roman emperors and persecuted
by the Roman state.
Anthropology, Harmartiology,
and Hell
Brian McLaren, applying his
Greco-Roman model to the Fall, sees Theos (who is different from Elohim of the
OT) in Zeus-like fashion holding loaded thunderbolts, ready to melt the earth
down to primal lava in order to purge all that is imperfect.[28] He goes on to state that when modernistic evangelical
believers use terms referring to “the Fall” or “original sin”, Greco-Roman,
non-Jewish, non-biblical concepts are being introduced to the story as if they
are “smugglers bringing foreign currency into the biblical the biblical economy
or tourists introducing invasive species into the biblical ecosystem”.[29] McLaren identifies both Platonic and Aristotelian modes
of thought within the story of the fall: Platonic perfection and changelessness
to Aristotelian changeability and imperfection.[30]
What then happens to those who die without becoming saved?
Frederica
Mathewes-Green sees hell as a place where those who denied Christ will
experience Christ’s presence as burning and darkness and gnashing of teeth.[31] This is not true for all Emergents. Brian McLaren sees hell as
a Christianized version of the Greek Hades, “intensified and decorated with
plenty of borrowings from its Zoroastrian counterpart and seasoned liberally
with imagery misappropriated from Jesus’s parables and sermons”.[32]
Ecclesiology
Emerging
and Emergent churches vary in their view and model of the church, as well as
the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. According to Gibbs, Emerging churches
remove modern Christian practices, but not the faith itself.[33] By addressing the church in postmodern context, Emergent
leaders focus on a radically different ecclesiology that reflects the church’s call
to mission in a post-Christendom era.[34]
One clear example of this is labeled
“Sacralization: the destruction of the sacred/secular split of modernity”.[35] In essence, everywhere, everyone, and everything in life can
be considered holy. Gibbs points out that modernity began in the
fourteenth century with the creation of secular space; and postmodernity began
when secular space and spiritual space were no longer separated, but called
into question as a whole.[36]
Spencer Burke describes his frustration of the modernist
secular/sacred split within his own life.
Throughout my last years in professional ministry, I felt a particular
tension between my life as an artist
and my calling as a pastor. It was so bizarre to sip wine at a gallery opening of my photography on Saturday night
then slap on a suit and preach Sunday morning.
When the gallery folks found out I was a pastor, they were stunned. Likewise, my friends at church struggled to
understand the arts community I belonged to. […] Both sides had cloistered themselves away for so long, they no
longer had the words- or even the
desire- to communicate with each other.[37]
Because
of this removal of Sacralization, the worship experience within Emergent
churches has changed considerably. Instead of beginning with a front-driven
consumerist church model, the Emergent church begins with an environment that
is open to sharing and participation from all attendees arguing that one cannot
worship from a detached standpoint.[38] Yaconelli records a clear example of this: if someone has
trouble understanding his sermon, they can interrupt his message in order to
ask questions; when someone feels led to sing a song to God that is “country”
by genre, the singer sings (even if off key); if they disagree with part of the
lesson, they voice their opinion for greater understanding- the point is that
they are all sharing and growing in their journey with and from one another.[39]
The
key for many missional churches is to combine worship with welcome through
identification and acceptance, including the Eucharist. This means that instead
of maintaining a conservative, evangelical, exclusivist stance, the Emergent
church has become inclusivist, allowing those who are outside the faith take
part. Furthermore, the Eucharist may not
be bread and wine, but may in fact be a complete meal at a person’s house or in
a coffee shop.[40] Burke questions the evangelical understanding of I Cor. 11:29-
just how much would the fate of a nonbeliever be affected by taking the Lord’s
Supper, would they go to hell twice, or might it be a powerful, first
experience with Christ.[41]
This
inclusion has allowed many within the Emergent church to accept homosexuality.
Tony Jones has stated that he “now believes that GLBTQ can live lives in accord
with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can) and that their
monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state”.[42] Mathewes-Green cautions that homosexuality, similarly to
adultery, is a sin, but that one must be careful in how they act since the
“arena of sexuality has been damaged by the distortion of the prevailing
culture and admit that our ability to evaluate these things is not
trustworthy”.[43] Driscoll stands adamantly against homosexuality, recommending
Rob Gagnon and a host of others who discuss current trends and the misuse the
liberal media has played into this topic.[44]
Critical Response
The
length of this paper does not allow for the treatment of every Emergent or
Emerging theology to the fullest. Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, for example
would be another resource to understand Emergent theology concerning both the
saved and unsaved in regards to God and hell. With that being said, a critical
response must be made from a conservative, evangelical basis by addressing two
key questions. First, theologically, and ecclesiologically, are there areas
where they do have a solid footing demanding that the current church rethink
the application of Scripture? Second, does the Emerging and Emergent church
offer insights into a lost and dying world that the current church should heed?
Response to
Emergent Theology and Ecclesiology
D. A. Carson
rightly states, “The emerging church movement honestly tries to read the
culture in which we find ourselves and to think through the implications of
such a reading for our witness, our grasp of theology, our churchmanship, even
our self-understanding”.[45]
Culture does play a key part, whether one is a missionary on foreign soil, or
one is reformissional like Mark Driscoll. Certain themes that are specific to
one country, or a part thereof, will not draw the same emotion in another part.
An easily understandable point is that a California-styled church would not do
well in the Deep South.
How much should
culture play into authentic Christianity? Akin points out that while one keeps
an open and watchful eye on culture (along with the trends and changes), one’s
feet must remain planted on Scripture.[46]
Paul gives a clear example of this when he witnesses to the Athenians by using
one of their own altars (Acts 17). However, Paul did not go up and start giving
an offering in order to draw attention; he maintained a biblical defense on
Mars Hill.
If the stance
is planted on Scripture, what of the postmodern thought that there are many interpretive
messages from many voices? This question is answered in a two-fold manner.
First, yes, the Bible does contain many stories, such as Jonah, Isaiah,
Abraham, and many others. However, the Old Testament carries one central theme:
God, who by His grace and foreknowledge has provided a way for man to come to
know Him (Gen 3:15).[47]
Many, including Enns will argue that the key theme of the OT is the kingdom of
God; however, before a kingdom was promised, the ruler of that kingdom was
promised.[48]
This is the reason the Pentateuch is placed first. It not only initiates the
promise of the Messiah, it continues to tell Israel her history, meaning, and
purpose.[49]
That purpose is that Israel is to be a light to the nations, one that draws
those around her to the message of the Messiah, the true ruler of the world.[50]
The inclusion of Gentiles in the Old Testament as recipients of the message
cannot be ignored.[51]
Does this theme
carry over into the New Testament? Unequivocally, the answer is yes! Jesus
tells his disciples that they are to be the salt and the light (Matt. 5:13-16).
John draws a similar parallel in that Jesus is the true light that penetrates
into the darkness (John 1:4).[52]
Paul explains that Satan has blinded the minds of them which believe not, and
that the only thing that can penetrate that darkness is the gospel (II Cor.
4:4). What is the gospel message? Is it that the kingdom of God is at hand, is
it the death and resurrection of Christ, or is it both? In essence, it is both,
as if a two-sided coin. All four gospels contain the resurrection story, and
all four gospels contain both messages and messengers proclaiming the kingdom
of God is at hand (Matt. 4:17; cf. Mk 1:14).[53]
However, one cannot enter into the kingdom unless one is saved, and one cannot
be saved unless there is a perfect sacrifice to cover the requirement to enter
into the kingdom (John 3:16-17), and that perfect sacrifice can only be the
Messiah that is prophesied in Isaiah 53.
If one must be
saved in order to enter into the kingdom, from what is that person being saved?
While McLaren argues that “original sin” is a Greco-Roman mindset, he cannot
ignore the fact that Gen. 3 records man being kicked out of the garden and
shortly thereafter, the world is completely overtaken by sin and wickedness,
except for one family (Gen. 6). What once started out as perfect has, by
choice, fallen into a state that requires a pure sacrifice. The OT version of
atonement sacrifice was never meant to be everlasting; it was only temporary
until that perfect sacrifice came (Lev. 17:11).[54]
This
theme continues even through to the last book of the New Testament, in which
multitudes of Gentiles and 144,000 Jews come to a saving knowledge of Christ
during the Tribulation. The Tribulation ends, and then the millennial reign of
the promised Messiah of Gen 3:15 will occur, followed by an Armageddon and
ending in the ultimate victory of worshipping the same Messiah for all
eternity. To see any of the apocryphal text of Revelation, and Daniel for that
matter, as allegorical is unacceptable and eisegetical because of the clarity
and literal understanding applied throughout the Bible by prophets, the
apostles, and Jesus Himself (Dan. 7; cf. Matt. 26:63-64).[55]
This then means that hell is a literal, eternal state where the unsaved remain
forever apart from God in a tormented, unfathomably horrendous existence.[56]
While
having good intentions, Brian McLaren is wrong in many of his theological
applications of scripture, whereas Mark Driscoll would fall in line more with
this critique. Other areas that are not discussed would cause some argument.
For example, Mark Driscoll has no problem using profane language or having an
alcoholic drink every now and then; but this is not the same as saying that the
Bible has multiple stories with different applications for each.
Is
the ecclesiological stance of the Emergent church correct or incorrect? This
answer is multi-faceted. Mark Driscoll has found a way to reach Seattle where
many churches and ministries were failing. His idea of reformission is
biblically valid in that every Christian should be a missionary within his or
her own culture.
What
about the open-door acceptance policy held by many Emergent churches- are
non-Christians allowed to partake in the Eucharist? Paul addresses this issue
in I Cor 10:16-17. The Lord’s Supper is meant to be a symbol for believers,
representing the new covenant between the believer and Christ.[57]
In no way can an unbeliever understand this symbol. Gregg Allison points out
that this was the clear understanding and application of the early church.[58]
Is this the way that it should remain? Wayne Grudem points out that a believer
who has been voted out by church discipline cannot partake of the Lord’s
Supper, than surely the unsaved cannot as well since partaking of the Lord’s
Supper is a sign of unity within the church (I Cor. 10:17).[59]
Response to
Cultural Insights
The
demand from the Emerging church for believers to live authentic lives is
clearly biblical. Sanctification is a part of the believer’s walk throughout
their transformed life. Part of this sanctification involves denying oneself
and living for Christ’s glory. Does this mean that a homosexual can continue in
that lifestyle and at the same time be pleasing to the Lord? Biblically, this
is impossible. Gen 2:24 defines marriage as one man and one woman designed by
God. This is reiterated in the New Testament in Matt 19:1-12, Rom. 1:26-27, and
I Cor. 7:12-20. Schmidt explains that there is considerable evidence that
homosexual orientation does not indicate a permanent state, but rather an
immature state resulting from either physical, psychological, or social factors
upon the will of the person.[60]
There
are areas though that the Emerging church identifies as areas of concern within
the modern, evangelical church. Todd Hunter correctly states that, “The church
is in grave trouble when discipleship (apprenticeship to Jesus) is viewed as
extracurricular or optional”.[61]
The focus of the Emerging church on evangelizing outsiders is commendable as
well, but the view of removing the sacred/secular divide must be taken
cautiously, since there are places that no Christian should ever go (i.e. strip
clubs and adult bookstores). Furthermore, the application of experience before
foundational truth warrants scrutiny and caution.
Conclusion
While
the Emerging and Emergent churches are definitely separate in many aspects,
some things must be reiterated. First, as Dale Van Dyke states, “I have no
problem with the ‘Paul in Athens’ model of people doing church a little bit
differently to communicate the gospel. But, you always need to go back to
teaching the gospel, preaching the Word of God, and a vibrant ministry of mercy
inside and out. If you are doing that, do it in your living room, I do not have
a problem with that”.[62]
The issue is when one allows culture and experience to interpret the inerrant
word of God.
With
that being said, the current model of the evangelical church is losing ground
in America. While the Emerging and Emergent churches are trying to change that,
there are issues with their theology, especially with men like Brian McLaren,
Rob Bell, and Leonard Sweet. In order to meet this downward spiral, one must
remain biblically sound and culturally relevant without compromising the clear
message of the gospel.
Unfortunately,
for many Emergent leaders, relativism, postmodern and non-propositional truth
declarations have removed the authority of Scripture. With that being said, if
there is nothing objectively true in the Bible, than there is nothing within
the belief system containing the Bible. The God of the OT and the NT are the
one and same, not two differing gods.[63]
If Christianity removes the foundational, exclusivist statements that it is
built upon, than there is no foundation and the whole building block of
Christianity collapses leaving the rubble of false religion behind.
Bibliography
Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to
Christian Doctrine. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant
with the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Culver, Robert Duncan. Systematic
Theology. Ross-Shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2006.
DeYoung,
Kevin and Ted Kluck. Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be.
Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology.
2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev.
ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 2008.
Ford, David F. The Modern
Theologians. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1997.
Geisler,
Norman. Systematic
Theology: Ecclesiology and Eschatology. Vol. 4. Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany House, 2005.
Gibbs, Eddie, and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging
Churches. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Henard, William D., and Adam W.
Greenway. Evangelicals Engaging Emergent. NOOK EBook. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009.
Hodge, Charles Systematic
Theology: Soteriology, Vol. 3, 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001.
Kaiser,
Walter C. The Promise-Plan of God: A
Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2008.
________. Mission in the Old
Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2000.
Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament
Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004.
McLaren,
Brian D. A New Kind of Christian: Ten
Questions that are Transforming the Faith. Harper Collins EBook, Jan. 2010.
Ryrie, Charles C. Biblical
Theology of the New Testament. Dubuque, IA: ECS Ministries, 2005.
Sweet,
Leonard. The Church in Emerging Culture. Nook EBook, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, June 2009.
Vos,
Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and
New Testaments. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1948.
Yaconelli, Mike, ed. Stories of
Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
[1] A similar application of this
is found in Henard, William D., and Adam W. Greenway. Evangelicals Engaging
Emergent (NOOK EBook, Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 15. D. A. Carson
uses this term interchangeably in his excellent work, Becoming Conversant
with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 12.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Driscoll,
17-18 is the source for the majority of this paragraph.
[5] Other notable
writers are, Leonard Sweet, Andy Crouch, Michael Horton, Frederica
Mathewes-Green, and Erwin Raphael McManus to name a few.
[7] Gibbs, Eddie,
and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2005), 36; cf. Anderson, Ray S. “Evangelical Theology” in The Modern
Theologians, ed. David F. Ford (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1997), 480 for a
basic definition of evangelical theology.
[8] Gibbs, 34-39;
cf. Anderson, 484 for a definition of modern evangelicalism.
[12] Ibid, 57.
[13] McLaren, 150.
[17]
Ibid, 75; his list includes: abortion, capitalism, communism, socialism,
psychological issues, autism, systematic racism, affirmative action, human
rights, nationalism, sexual orientation, pornography, global climate change,
imprisonment, extinction of species, energy efficiency, environmental
sustainability, genetic engineering, space travel, and so on.
[19] Ibid, 54.
McLaren states that if the world were created perfect, it would have been
created fully complete, fully developed, and fully populated.
[20] Ibid, 55.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Yaconelli, Mike,
ed. Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 49.
[23] Gibbs, 54.
[24] Yaconelli, 49;
the idea of reductionist gospel “removes our actual life. Jesus became merely
the Lamb, not the Lamb and the Teacher for a new kind of life, in a new
context: the Kingdom on earth and in heaven”.
[25] Gibbs, 55.
[27] McLaren, 127.
[28] McLaren, 50.
[29] Ibid.
[31] Sweet, Leonard.
The Church in Emerging Culture. (Nook EBook, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
June 2009), 128.
[32] McLaren, 51.
[34] Ibid, 65.
[36] Ibid, 44.
[38] Gibbs,
158-159; the congregations are contributors to rather than recipients
of worship.
[39] Yaconelli, 18.
[40] Gibbs, 119.
[41] Yaconelli,
30-31.
[42] Henard, 244;
GLBTQ stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer.
[43] Sweet, 133.
[44] Driscoll, 165-
note #7.
[46] Henard, 245.
[47] Kaiser, Walter
C., Jr. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New
Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 19.
[49] Zuck, Roy B.,
ed. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 9.
[50] Kaiser, Jr. Mission
in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2000), 24.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Morris, Leon. New
Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 281.
[54] Vos,
Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and
New Testaments Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003) 166-170.
[55] Geisler,
Norman C. Systematic Theology: Ecclesiology
and Eschatology, Vol. 4 (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2005), 464-465.
[56] Culver, Robert
Duncan. Systematic Theology (Ross-Shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2006),
1074-1084. See also Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology: Soteriology,
Vol. 3 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), 868-877.
[57] Marshall, I.
Howard, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 261.
[58] Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to
Christian Doctrine, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 636.
[60] Elwell, Walter
A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 351-355.
[61] Yaconelli, 47.
[63] Enns, 694-697-
this section lists 10 summary issues with the Emerging Church and should be
considered as a basic analysis of the flaws as well as the good within the
movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment