the emerging church - da carson

8/2/2019 The Emerging Church - DA Carson

1/5

The Emerging Church

D. A. Carson

What Are We Talking About ?

AttheheartoftheEm ergentChurchm ovem ent-orassom eofitsleadersprefertocallit,the"conversation"-liestheconvictionthatchangesintheculturesignalthatanewchurchis"em erging."Christianleadersm ustthereforeadapttothisem ergingchurch.Thosewhofailtodosoareblindto

theculturalaccretionsthathidethegospelbehindformsofthoughtandm odesofexpressionthatnolongercom m unicatewiththenewgeneration,theem erginggeneration.

Onereasonwhythemovem enthasmushroom edsoquicklyisthatitisbringingtofocusalotofhazyperceptionsalreadywidelycirculatingintheculture.Itisarticulatingcrisplyand

polem icallywhatm anypastorsandotherswerealreadybeginningtothink,eventhoughtheydidnotenjoy-untiltheleadersofthism ovem entcam ealong-anycham pionswhoputtheiram orphousm alaiseintoperspective.

What Charact erizes the Movement?

Protest.Itisdifficulttogainafullappreciationofthedistinctivesofthem ovem entwithoutlisteningattentivelytothelifestoriesofitsleaders.Manyofthem havecom efrom conservative,traditional,evangelicalchurches,som etim eswitha

fundam entaliststreak.Thusthereformsthatthemovem entencouragesmirrortheprotestsofthelivesofm anyofitsleaders.

TheplacetobeginisthebookStoriesofEm ergence,editedbyMikeYaconelli.Mostofthese"storiesofem ergence"haveincom m onashareddestination(nam ely,theEm ergentChurchm ovem ent)andasharedpointoforigin:traditional(andsom etim esfundam entalist)Evangelicalism .W hatallofthesepeoplehaveincom m onisthattheybeganinonethingand"em erged"intosom ethingelse.Thisgivesthebookaflavorofprotest,ofrejection:wewerewhereyouwereonce,butweem ergedfrom itintosom ethingdifferent.Thesubtitleofthebookdiscloseswhattheeditorseesascom m onground:Movingfrom AbsolutetoAuthentic.

Anexam plem ayclarifywhatthebookistryingtoaccom plish.SpencerBurkeusedtositinaplushthird-flooroffice,servingasoneofthepastorsofMarinersChurchinIrvine,California-"abonafidemegachurchwitha25-acrepropertyanda$7.8m illionbudget."Everyweekend4,500adultsusethefacilities,andthechurchm inistersto10,000peopleaweek.ButBurkebecam etroubledbythingssuchasparkinglotm inistry.("Helpingwell-dressedfam iliesinSUVsfindthenextavailable

parkingspaceisn'tm yspiritualgift.").Hebecam eequallydisenchantedwiththree-pointsermonsandten-stepdiscipleshipprogram s,nottom entiontheprem illennial,pretribulationaleschatologyonwhichhehadbeentrained.Burkecam etorealizethathis"discontentwasneverwithMarinersasachurch,but[with]contem poraryChristianityasaninstitution."

Burkeorganizesthecausesofhisdiscontentunderthreeheadings.First,hehascom etorejectwhathecalls"spiritualMcCarthyism ,"thestyleofleadershipthatbelongsto"alinear,analyticalworld"withclearlinesofauthorityandapastorwhoisCEO.SpiritualMcCarthyism ,Burkeasserts,is"whathappenswhenthepastor-as-CEOm odelgoesbadorwhenwell-m eaningpeoplegettoom uchpower."Theseauthoritystructuresarequicktobrandanyonea"liberal"whoquestionsthereceivedtradition.

ThesecondcauseofBurke'sdiscontentiswhathecalls"spiritualisolationism ."Underthisheadingheincludesthepatternofm anychurchesm ovingfrom thecitytothesuburbs.Som etim esthisisdoneundertheguiseofneedingm orespace.

But t here is a danger

in constant ly

exploding the

certaint ies of t he

past: if w e are not

careful, w e may be

lef t w i th nothing to

hang on to at all.

Page 1 of 5Modern Reformation - Print Friendly

3/8/2012http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=128


2/5

Nevertheless,heinsists,thereareotherm otives."It'ssim plerforfam iliestoarriveatchurchwithouthavingtostepoveradrunkorwatchdrugdealsgodowninthealley.Let'sbehonest:churchinthecitycanbemessy.Dealingwithahom elessm anwhowandersintotheserviceshoutingexpletivesorcleaningupvom itfrom thebackstepsisalongwayfrom parsingGreekverbsinsem inary."Indeed,m egachurchesoutinthesuburbssom etim esconstructentireon-cam pusworlds,com pletewithshopsandgym sandaerobicscenters.

Thethird causeofhisdiscontentBurkelabels"spiritualDarwinism "-clim binguptheladderontheassum ptionthatbiggerisbetter.Thezealforgrowtheasilyfostered"akindofprogram -envy....Lookingback,Ispentagoodpartofthe1980'sand'90sgoingfrom conferencetoconferencelearninghowtoridehighonsom eoneelse'ssuccess."Toshepherdacongregationwasnotenough;theaim wastohavethefastest-growingcongregation."Itwassurvivalofthefittestwithathinspiritualveneer."

In1998BurkestartedTheOoze.com .Thenam eoftheactivechatroom isdesignedlym etaphorical:Burkeintendsthistobeaplacewhere"thevariouspartsofthefaithcom m unityarelikem ercury.Trytotouchtheliquidorconstrainit,andthesubstancewillresist.Ratherthanforcepeopletofallintoline,anoozycom m unitytoleratesdifferencesandtreatspeoplewhoholdopposingview withgreatdignity.Tom e,that'stheessenceoftheem erging church."

Prot est Against Modern ism

ThedifficultyindescribingtheEm ergentChurchm ovem entasaprotestagainstm odernism ispartlyoneofdefinition:neitherm odernism norpostm odernism iseasytodefine.Evenexpertsinintellectualhistorydisagreeontheirdefinitions.

Them ajorityview ,how ever,isthatthefundam entalissueinthem ovefrom m odernism topostm odernism isepistem ology-i.e.,howweknowthings,orthinkweknowthings.Modernism isoftenpicturedaspursuingtruth,absolutism ,linearthinking,rationalism ,certainty,thecerebralasopposedtotheaffectivewhich,inturn,breedsarrogance,inflexibility,alusttoberight,thedesiretocontrol.Postm odernism ,bycontrast,recognizeshowm uchofwhatwe"know"isshapedbythecultureinwhichwelive,iscontrolledbyem otionsandaestheticsandheritage,andcanonlybeintelligentlyheldaspartofacom m ontradition,withoutoverbearingclaim stobeingtrueorright.Modernism triestofindunquestionedfoundationsonwhichtobuildtheedificeofknowledgeandthenproceedswithm ethodologicalrigor;postm odernism deniesthatsuchfoundationsexist(itis"antifoundational")andinsiststhatwecom eto"know"thingsinm anyways,notafewofthem lackinginrigor.Modernism ishard-edgedand,inthedom ainofreligion,focusesontruthversuserror,rightbelief,confessionalism ;postm odernism isgentleand,inthedom ainofreligion,focusesuponrelationships,love,sharedtradition,integrityindiscussion.

How thendothosewhoidentifywiththeEm ergentChurchmovem entthinkaboutthesem atters?Them ajorityofem ergingchurchleadersseeaveryclearcontrastbetweenm oderncultureandpostm oderncultureandconnectthedividetoquestionsofepistem ology.Som ethinkthatweareinapostm oderncultureandthereforeoughttobeconstructingpostmodernchurches.Afew acknow ledgethatnoteverythinginpostmodernism isadm irableandthereforewanttom aintainsom esortofpropheticwitnessagainstpostm odernism atvariouspointswhileeagerlyem bracingthefeaturesofpostmodernism thattheyperceiveasadm irable.

BrianMcLaren,probablythem ostarticulatespeakerintheem ergingmovem ent,hasem phasized,inbothbooksandlectures,thatpostm odernism isnotantim odernism .ThetellingpointforMcLarenandm ostoftheotherleadersoftheEm ergentChurchm ovem entistheirem phasisonthediscontinuityasoveragainstthecontinuitywithm odernism .W henMcLarenspeaksthroughthelipsofNeo,thepostm odernChristianprotagonistofhisbest-knownbooks(theNewKindofChristian trilogy),hecanuse"post-"asauniversalcategorytohighlightwhathedoesnotlike:"Inthepostm odernworld,webecom epostconquest,postm echanistic,postanalytical,postsecular,postobjective,postcritical,postorganizational,postindividualistic,post-Protestant,andpostconsum erist."Thesebooksshowhowm uchwhatMcLarenthinks"anew kindofChristian"shouldbeliketodayisdeterminedbyallthenewthingshebelievesareboundupwithpostm odernism :hence"anewkindofChristian."

MuchofMcLaren'saim inhiswritingandlecturingistoexplodethecertaintiesthathefeelshavecontrolledtoom uchofthethinkingofW esternChristianpeopleinthepast.Butthereisadangerinconstantlyexplodingthecertaintiesofthepast:ifwearenotcareful,wemaybeleftwithnothingtohangontoatall.Recognizingthedanger,McLarentakesthenextstepbyprovidinguswithtwodefinitions.

Thefirstofhisdefinitionsisofphilosophicalpluralism ,thestancethatassertsthatnosingleoutlookcanbetheexplanatorysystem orviewofrealitythataccountsforalloflife.EvenifweChristiansthinkwehaveit,wem ustim m ediatelyfacethediversitiesam ongus:arewetalkingaboutBaptistviewsofreality?Presbyterian?Anglican?AndwhichBaptist?Philosophicalpluralism deniesthatanysystem offersacom pleteexplanation.




3/5

Theseconddefinitionisofrelativism .Itisthetheorythatdeniesabsolutism andinsiststhatm oralityandreligionarerelativetothepeoplewhoem bracethem .LestChristiansthinknoneofthisappliestothem ,McLarendraw sattentiontotheethniccleansingoftheOldTestam ent,toDavid'sm anywives,toinjunctionsagainstwearinggoldrings.

Ifbothphilosophicalpluralism andrelativism aregivenfreeplay,McLarenasserts,itisdifficulttoseehowonecanbefaithfultotheBible.Yetabsolutism cannotbeallowedtorule:thecriticism ofabsolutism istoodevastating,tooconvincingtopermitittostand.Soperhapsacultureplaguedbyabsolutism needsadoseofrelativism tocorrectwhatiswrongwithit-notsom ucharelativism thatutterlydisplaceswhatcam ebefore,butarelativism thatinsom esenseem braceswhatcam ebefore,yetm oveson.Ifabsolutism isthecancer,itneedsrelativism asthechem otherapy.Eventhoughthischem otherapyisdangerousinitself,itisthenecessarysolution.

Ifabsolutism isnottheanswerandabsoluterelativism isnottheanswer,whatistheChristianwayahead?HereMcLarenfindshim selfheavilyindebtedtotheshortworkbyJonathanW ilson,LivingFaithfullyinaFragm entedW orld:LessonsfortheChurchfrom MacIntyre'sAfterVirtue.Thisissurelywhatwewant:wewanttolearntolivefaithfullyinafragm entedworld.Absolutism playsbyonesetofrules.Realpluralism islikealargefieldwherem anygam esarebeingplayed,eachgam eobservingitsownrules.Thissortofpluralism iscoherent.Butweliveinafragm entedworld:weareplayinggolfwithabaseball,baseballwithasoccerball,andsoforth.Thisisnotrealpluralism ;itisfragm entedexistence.

Doubtlessafew sm all,coherent,com m unitiesexist-HasidicJews,perhaps,ortheAm ish-whom anagetoplaybyonesetofrules,buttherestofusarem iredinfragm entations.Asaresult,thereisnocoherence,noagreem entonwherewearegoing.Ouraccountsofwhatwearedoingm aintainthelingeringuseoftheolderabsolutistlanguage,whilewefindourselves,notingenuinepluralism ,butinfragm entation.InNorthAm ericawehaveam em oryofabsolutisttotalitarianChristianityandexperiencefragm entation.Soourchoiceiswhethertogobacktothisabsolutistheritageorforwardtosom ethingelse.Canweweaveafabricthatisnottotalitarianandabsolutistbutavoidsabsoluterelativism ?Theformerreturnsustothebarbaritiesandisunconvincinginapostm odernage;thelattersim plyleavesusopentothem arketers,forthereisnocoherentdefenseagainstthem .

Thewayahead,McLarensuggests,isveryhelpfullysetoutinDavidBosch'sTransform ingMission:Paradigm ShiftsinTheologyofMission.Towardtheendofthebook,Boschlistseightperspectivesthatspeaktooursituationandgiveussom edirection:

1.Acceptco-existencewithdifferentfaithsgladly,notbegrudgingly.Itisnottheirfaultiftheyarealive.2.Dialoguepresupposescom m itm enttoone'sposition,soitissurelynotabadthingtolistenwell.Dialogueshouldbecongruentwithconfidenceinthegospel.3.W eassum ethatthedialoguetakesplaceinthepresenceofGod,theunseenPresence.Insuchdialoguewem aylearnthings,asPeterdoesinActs10-11.Sim ilarly,Jesuslearnsfrom hisinterchangewiththeSyrophoenicianwom an.4.Missionaldialoguerequireshum ilityandvulnerability.Butthatshouldnotfrightenus,forwhenweareweak,wearestrong.Itissurelyright,forinstance,toacknowledgeearlieratrocitiescom m ittedbyChristians,evenaswerem aincarefulnottodisparagethoseearlierChristians.5.Eachreligionoperatesinitsownworldandthereforedem andsdifferentresponsesfrom Christians.6.Christianwitnessdoesnotprecludedialogue.7.The"old,oldstory"m aynotbethetrue,truestory,forwecontinuetogrow,andevenourdiscussionanddialoguescontributetosuchgrowth.Inotherwords,thequestionsraisedbypostm odernism helpustogrow.8.Livewiththeparadox:weknow nowayofsalvationapartfrom JesusChrist,butwedonotprejudgewhatGodm aydowithothers.W emustsim plylivewiththetension.

Ihavetakenthism uchspacetosum m arizeMcLaren'sviews(articulatedatarecentlecture)foracoupleofreasons.Oneisbecausem ostsideswouldagreethatMcLarenistheem ergingchurch'sm ostinfluentialthinker(or,attheveryleast,oneofthem ).AnotherreasonisbecausewhilemostleadersoftheEm ergentChurchm ovem entsetuparelativelysim pleantithesis-nam ely,m odernism isbadandpostm odernism isgood-McLareniscarefulinthispiecetoavoidtheobvioustrap:m any

formsofpostm odernthoughtdoinfactleadtosom ekindofreligiousrelativism ,andMcLarenknowsthatfortheChristianthatisnotanoption.Heclearlywantstosteeracoursebetweenabsolutism andrelativism ,andheism orecarefulonthispointthansom eofhispeers.

Nevertheless,forMcLaren,absolutism isassociatedwithm odernism ,sothateveryevaluationheoffersonthatsideofthechallengeisnegative.Indeed,itisdifficulttothinkofasinglepassageinanyofthewritingsoftheEm ergentleadersthatIhavereadthatoffersapositiveevaluationofanyelem entofsubstanceinm odernism .ButMcLarendoesnotconnectrelativism withpostm odernism .Heappearstothinkofrelativism assom ethingm oreextrem e(perhapspostm odernism gonetoseed?),whilepostm odernism itselfbecom estheuncritiquedm atrixinwhichwemustworkoutourtheology.Sowhilehedism issesabsolutereligiousrelativism (itcannotbesaidthathecritiquesit;rather,herecognizesthatasaChristianhecannotfinallygodow nthatavenue),Ihavenotyetseenfrom McLaren,oranyoneelseintheEm ergentChurchmovem ent,acritiqueofanysubstantiveelem entofpostm odernthought.




4/5

Prot est ing on Three Front s

TheEm ergentChurchm ovem entischaracterizedbyafairbitofprotestagainsttraditionalEvangelicalism and,m orebroadly,againstallthatitunderstandsbymodernism .Butsom eofitsproponentsaddanotherfrontofprotest,nam ely,theSeeker-sensitivechurch,them egachurch.

Thedegreetowhichthiselem entstandsoutvariesconsiderably.Itiscertainlypresent,forinstance,inDanKim ball'sTheEm ergingChurch:VintageChristianityforNew Generations.Hisrecentbookispraisedbynotafew pastorsintheSeeker-sensitivetradition,doubtlessbecauseKim ballcastshiswork,inpart,asthewayforwardtoreachanewgenerationofpeoplewhohavemovedon,generationallyandculturally,from thekindsofpeoplewhograbbedtheattentionoftheSeeker-sensitivem ovem entthreedecadesago.Althoughtherearedifferences,theEm ergentchurchleaders,liketheSeeker-sensitiveleadersintheirtim e,arem otivated,inpart,byadesiretoreachpeoplewhodonotseem tobeattractedtotraditionalapproachesandstances-andtheSeeker-sensitivem ovem entisnowoldenoughtobeoneofthe"traditional"approaches.PastorsintheSeeker-sensitivetradition,thentendtoseeintheem ergingchurchleadersanewgenerationofChristiansdoingthesortofthingthattheythem selvesdidagenerationearlier.

Kim ball'sbooksetsouthowtogoafterthepost-Seeker-sensitivegeneration.Muchofhism aterialgoesovercom m onground.Heoffersakindofpopularprofileofwhathethinkspostm odernism em braces:itacceptspluralism ,em bracestheexperiential,delightsinthem ystical,andiscom fortablewithnarrative,withwhatisfluid,global,com m unal/tribal,andsoforth.Kim ballthenturnstohowweshouldgoaboutthingsratherdifferently.Thisincludesanappendixonpost-Seeker-sensitiveworship.Herewem usthavem uchmoresym bolism andagreaterstressonthevisual.W eshouldhavecrossesandcandles.Therem ightbeanentirecom m unionservicewithoutasermon.Theentiregeographyoftheroom m aybe

different,withthepossibilityofdifferentgroupswithintheassem blyengagingindifferentthingsatatim e,andperhapssom eonegoingoffforawhiletoaquietdeskforabitofjournaling.Theentireexperienceshouldbem ultisensory;theprayercornerm aywellburnincense."W orshipintheem ergingchurch,"Kim ballwrites,"islessaboutlookingoutforwhatisonthecuttingedgeandm oreaboutm ovingbackintoourspiritualcenterwithJesusasoursolefocus."

Kim balloffersusantitheticalvisionsofm odernpreachingandpostm odernpreaching.Inm odernpreaching,theserm onisthefocalpointoftheservice,andthepreacherservesasthedispenserofbiblicaltruthstohelpsolvepersonalproblem sinm odernlife.Sermonsem phasizeexplanation-explanationofwhatthetruthis.ThestartingpointistheJudeo-Christianworldview ,andbiblicalterm slike"gospel"and"Arm ageddon"donotneeddefinition.Thebiblicaltextiscom m unicatedprim arilywithwords,andthispreachingtakesplacewithinthechurchbuildingduringaworshipservice.

Bycontrast,Kim ballwrites,inthepostm odernEm ergentChurchm ovem ent,theserm onisonlyonepartoftheexperienceoftheworshipgathering.Herethepreacherteacheshowtheancientwisdom appliestokingdom living;thepreacherem phasizesandexplainstheexperienceofwhothetruthis.ThestartingpointistheGardenofEdenandtheretellingofthe

storyofcreationandoftheoriginsofhum anbeingsandofsin(cf.Acts17:22-34).Thescripturalm essageiscom m unicatedthrougham ixofwords,visualarts,silence,testim ony,andstory,andthepreacherisam otivatorwhoencouragespeopletolearnfrom theScripturesthroughouttheweek.Alotofpreachingtakesplaceoutsidethechurchbuildinginthecontextofcom m unityandrelationships.Suchpreachingwillbedeeplytheocentricratherthananthropocentric,andcareshouldbetakennottoinsultpeople'sintelligence.

W hatcannotbeoverlookedinKim ball'sbook,Ithink,ishowm uchofhisanalysisisspecificallydirectedagainstchurchesintheSeeker-sensitivetradition.Forexam ple,som eofhissuggestions-suchasinsistencethatserm onsshouldbetheocentricandnotanthropocentric,thattheyshouldnotinsulttheintelligenceofthehearers,thatinstructionintheW ordshouldgoonthroughouttheweekandnotbeconfinedtopublicservicesonSunday,andwhatweshouldaim forinkingdom living,onecouldeasilyfindinReform edexhortations,perhapsinthepagesofam agazinesuchasthis.

OtherpartsofKim ball'sadvice,ofcourse,couldnotsim ilarlybealigned.Yetthefactthatsom uchofwhathehastosaycanbealignedwithm anyseriousvoiceswithintraditionalEvangelicalism suggeststhatm ostofthetim ethe"im pliedreader"ofhisbookisnotthem oretraditionalevangelicalchurch,butSeeker-sensitivechurches.InKim ball'sview,theytooareoutofstepwiththecultureandfallunderthecurseofm odernism .Moreover,if,aswehaveseen,severalofKim ball'sindividualsuggestionsastothewayaheadarerem iniscentofstancestakenwithinpartsoftraditionalEvangelicalism ,thestructureofhisthought,takenasawhole,isdistinctivelypostm odern.

What Should We Be Asking?

ThisisbutasketchyintroductiontotheEm ergentChurchm ovem ent.W hathavewelearnedsofarandwhatquestionsshouldwebeasking?

From thesesum m ariesofthestoriesofm anyoftheleadersoftheem ergingmovem entandthesurveyofsom eoftheirpublicationsonepointstandsoutratherdram atically.Tograspitsuccinctly,itisworthcom paringtheEm ergentChurch




5/5

m ovem entwiththeReform ation,whichwas,afterall,anotherm ovem entthatclaim editwantedtoreform thechurch.W hatdrovetheReformationwastheconviction,am ongallitsleaders,thattheRom anCatholicChurchhaddepartedfrom Scriptureandhadintroducedtheologyandpracticesthatwereinim icaltogenuineChristianfaith.Inotherwords,theywantedthingstochange,notbecausetheyperceivedthatnew developm entshadtakenplaceintheculturesothatthechurchwascalledtoadaptitsapproachtothenewculturalprofile,butbecausetheyperceivedthatnew theologyandpracticeshaddevelopedinthechurchthatcontravenedScripture,andthereforethatthingsneededtobereformedbytheW ordofGod.Bycontrast,althoughtheEm ergentChurchm ovem entchallenges,onbiblicalgrounds,som eofthebeliefsandpracticesofEvangelicalism ,byandlargeitinsistsitispreservingtraditionalconfessionalism butchangingtheem phasesbecausetheculturehaschanged,andsoinevitablythosewhoareculturallysensitiveseethingsinafreshperspective.Inotherwords,attheheartoftheem ergingreform ationliesaperceptionofam ajorchangeinculture.

Thisdoesnotm eanthattheEm ergentChurchm ovem entiswrong.Itm eans,rather,threethings.

First,theEm ergentChurchm ovem entm ustbeevaluatedastoitsreadingofcontem poraryculture.Mostofitspleasforreformaretightlytiedtoitsunderstandingsofpostm odernism .Thedifficultyofthetask(grantedtheplethoraofapproachestopostm odernism )cannotexem ptusfrom m akinganattem pt.

Second,asreaderswillhavealreadyobservedfrom thisshortsurvey,theappealstoScriptureintheEm ergingChurchliteraturearegenerallyoftwokinds.Ontheonehand,som eEm ergentchurchleadersclaim thatchangingtim esdem andthatfreshquestionsbeaskedofScripture,andthenfreshanswerswillbeheard.W hatwasanappropriateuseofScriptureunderm odernism isnolongeranappropriateuseofScriptureunderpostm odernism .OnthisgentlerreadingofEvangelicalism 'shistory,traditionalevangelicalsarenotaccusedofbeingdeeplymistakenfortheirowntim es,butofbeingratheroutofdatenow,notleastintheirhandlingoftheBible.Ontheotherhand,theEm ergentChurch'scritiqueofm odernism ,andoftheEvangelicalism thatm odernism hasproduced,issom etim es(notalways)sobitterthatEvangelicalism 'shandlingofScripturecanbem ockedinstingingterm s.Thisisnotm eanttoim plythatthisistrueofallem ergingpastors.

Third,grantedthattheEm ergentChurchm ovem entisdrivenbyitsperceptionofwidespreadculturalchanges,itsownproposalsforthewayaheadm ustbeassessedfortheirbiblicalfidelity.Inotherwords,wem ustnotonlytrytoevaluatetheaccuracyoftheEm ergentChurch'sculturalanalysis,butalsotheextenttowhichitsproposalsspringfrom ,orcanatleastbesquaredwith,theScriptures.Toputthem atterdifferently:Isthereatleastsom edangerthatwhatisbeingadvocatedisnotsom uchanewkindofChristianinanewEm ergentChurch,butachurchthatissosubm ergingitselfintheculturethatitriskshopelesscom prom ise?

Eventoaskthequestionwillstrikesom easim pertinenceatbest,oratiredappealtotheold-fashionedatworst.Im eanittobeneither.Mostm ovem entshavebothgoodandbadinthem ,andinthebookfrom whichthisarticleistakenIhighlightsom eofthethingsIfindencouragingandhelpfulintheEm ergentChurchm ovem ent.IfindthatIam m orecriticalofthem ovem entbecausemy"take"oncontem porarycultureisabitrem ovedfrom theirs,partlybecausethesolutionsIthinkarerequiredaresom ewhatdifferentfrom theirs,partlybecauseIworryabout(unwitting)driftfrom Scripture,andpartlybecausethism ovem entfeelslikeanexerciseinpendulum swinging,wherethelaw ofunintendedconsequencescandoalotofdam agebeforethependulum com estorest.

1[Back ]Thisarticlewasadaptedfrom Dr.Carson'sbookBecom ingConversantwiththeEm ergingChurch(Zondervan,2005).Itisexcerptedherebypermissionoftheauthorandpublisher.

Issue:"FaithALaCarte?TheEm ergentChurch"July/August2005Vol.14No.4Pagenum ber(s):11-18

Perm issions:Youareperm ittedandencouragedtoreproduceanddistributethism aterialinanyform atprovidedthatyoudonotalterthewordinginanyway,youdonotchargeafeebeyondthecostofreproduction,andyoudonotm akem orethan500physicalcopies.Forwebposting,alinktothisdocum entonourwebsiteispreferred.AnyexceptionstotheabovemustbeexplicitlyapprovedbyModernReform ation.

Copyright 2012W hiteHorseInn.


3/8/2012h // d f i /d f l h ? i f i dl & 1 P i & 2 128

the emerging church - da carson

Documents