“Men are more apt to be mistaken in their generalizations than in their particular observations.” So said Niccolo Machiavelli and after reading an article by Jason Carlson on the emergent church, I have to say that Machiavelli is still ’spot on.’ A friend recommended an article to me that appeared near a blurb about Carlson’s DVD by the name of My Journey In and Out of the Emerging Church. The promotion for the DVD went on to call the emergent church “a new dangerous movement” that is “sweeping though the Christian church in America and around the world.” It went on to say that
“Jason will explain what he learned, witnessed and experienced during his time in the Emerging church. Are you currently active in church ministry? Are you a believer concerned about the future of the church? Do you have a son or daughter attending one of the strange new churches? If so you must view this timely and biblically based session on the Emergent church.”
Sounds like something dangerous is brewing, doesn’t it? I mean, I don’t want my daughter attending a ’strange’ new church. So I decided to try and find something written by him online to see what was so dangerous about this movement. It didn’t take me long to locate his article of almost the same name My Journey Into and Out of the Emeging(sic) Church.
Carlson begins the article friendly enough. After all, he came from the movement, maintains friendships within the movement, and they can all agree to disagree. He calls himself a ”friendly critic of Emergent.” I have to tell you though, the reasons that he cites for withdrawing from the movement had me feeling anything but friendly.
In fact, his reasons made me a bit angry. I was angry because he was maligning the emergent conversation by making sweeping generalities that are blatantly false. Can you find some adherents within the emergent church for which some of these would accurately reflect their viewpoints or actions? Probably. Largely however, Carlson has misstated the emergent church’s theology and motive.
I attended a conference this last weekend that included a good number of women who are in leadership within the emerging church and none of what Mr. Carlson stated in his article fit the paradigms that these women were operating under. Mr. Carlson argued from his experience. Let me argue from mine.
For instance, he states that “lack of a proper appreciation for biblical authority over and against personal experience or revelation.” This is not true. What the women that I gathered with this last weekend do have is a proper appreciation for my having the freedom to choose to believe differently. This allows for real fellowship among believers because we are not getting caught up in doctrinal differences. With non-believers, it allows the non-believer the grace to be able to have an open and honest discussion without fear of being beaten over the head with the Bible.
He also said the emergent church openly questions “the relevance of key historical biblical doctrines such as the Trinity.” Having spent the last weekend with this fabulous group of (horrors!) emerging women leaders, none of the ladies whom I had come in contact with were questioning any such thing. It wasn’t an issue for them. What they did allow for, however, was the fact that we would grapple with these issues for all time until Christ returns because we cannot truly comprehend them. We have enough from the Word to understand that they are true but that we cannot understand ‘how’ they are true.
Jason Carlson said the emergents have “an unbridled cynicism towards conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.” If it is true, could it be because of warrant-less attacks such as this? However, again, the tone of this last weekend was not one of cynicism but of “how can we work together with the traditional church to build the kingdom.”
He states that there is “little or no talk of evangelism or saving lost souls” among them. The ladies that I spent time with last weekend saw social action as an opportunity to earn the right to tell others of Christ. It was the action that led to the question, “Why do you do this?” and gave them the opportunity to share about a relationship with Christ.
And the final point that I will spend time on, that the emergents believe in “a salvation by osmosis mentality, where if you hangout with us long enough you’re in.” Again, not true! A recognition that there is a great number of people who now need to belong to a community before they will believe the truth that they see being lived out in the lives of those around them is quite a different thing than believing that if you hang out enough with us you are in.
I could take any of the points that Mr. Carlson raises in his article and do the very same with them – disagree! I have no problem doing so because he paints the emerging church with such a wide brush and in such harsh tones that it is not hard to see where his error occurs. He isn’t arguing from Scriptural grounds. He is lumping anything that does not fit his tightly held worldview into the label of ‘emergent.’ That can not be done accurately. Mr. Carlson might want to follow Machiavelli’s advice and stick to particulars instead of sweeping with such broad strokes.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 1, 2007 at 5:07 pm
revbonnie
Thanks for your thoughts on this writer and new critic of the emergent movement. We are trying to start a service with an emergent process and I need to know what the critics are saying. I agree wholeheartedly with your reflections on the emerging church; your reflections match my experience. I’ll have to look into this writer. Love the quote from Machiavelli, too, by the way.
a fellow believer,
Bonnie Malone
February 3, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Joe Miller
As you know Paula, our church plant gets put in the Emergent crowd as well. And while it is true there are some individual and churches in the emergent stream that are accurately described by Carlson , you are right, he certainly does not paint a fair picture of what all emergent churches are all about.
November 28, 2008 at 12:32 am
DDR
>> He is lumping anything that does not fit his tightly held worldview into the label of ‘emergent.’
Well this comment of yours destroys your entire argument that you are trying to make because this is the entire point of the emergent church. The bible is not the final authority and can be changed to fit and mould a NEW Christian worldview. You scoff at someone who wants to hold tightly onto the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the preaching of salvation through repentance of sin which leads people to the REAL Jesus Christ. You however speak of social action which then converts people to ‘Christ’.
If you actually one day decided to pick up the bible and read IN CONTEXT what it has to say you will understand that the Emergent Church is nothing but anti-Christ. You preach a Christ but it’s not Jesus Christ of the bible, but a Christ in which all religions can believe in, all faiths lead to this special new Christ of yours.
December 12, 2008 at 8:47 am
Louise
I think I would want to ask Jason Carlson and – with all due respect – the person commenting above: what is it that you are afraid of?
I am sure, of course, that the emergent movement is not all perfect, but then, it doesnt’ claim to be. Grace is a word that shocks, stuns and frightens us as Christians – it’s too good to be true. It’s too hard to accept, so often, I believe, we get trapped in black and white thinking. THis therefore means that we are afraid of the grey uncertainties, the unanswerable questions. But, in my experience (and believe me, I’ve known huge loss and pain in my life) I am sure it is there in the grey that the rainbow begins. But sometimes the colours are too bright and beautiful for us to dare to open our eyes.
I believe the emergent movement is courageous – not perfect, no – but courageous and honest. Father God loves honesty and He IS grace. Will we dare to open our eyes?
December 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Paula
Louise,
You have a way with words and make a point. The emergent movement, in my experience, gives space to the unanswerable questions. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
June 24, 2009 at 8:47 am
jcubed
Dear PE,
After reading the article written by Jason Carlson, it does not appear to me that Jason Carlson makes any generalities. In fact, he has first-hand knowledge of the ECM “conversation” and personal interaction with the ECM personalities that not only initiated the movement, but continue to influence the various streams in the movement.
In the article, Jason Carlson states he was directly influenced by Doug Pagitt, who was his youth pastor while he was in high school. He also states that Doug Pagitt remains his close friend (at the time of his writing). Jason Carlson also states he was introduced to and spent time with ECM personalities Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and others.
I read some of your story to ascertain the extent of your involvement with the ECM, and have to ask, do you personally have the same in-depth knowledge of the conversation and/or access to the ECM personalities that Jason Carlson’s had while he was in the ECM or even now that he is out of the ECM?
It is evident, after six years of participation in the “conversation,” that Jason Carlson is uniquely qualified, not only by his participation, but with his personal association with prominent ECM personalities, e.g., Doug Pagitt, to both evaluate and critique the ECM. Your anger is unwarranted and misdirected. Perhaps, you would be better advised to be focus your anger (but sin not) elsewhere.
Jason Carlson is maligning no one. Everything Jason Carlson writes about the ECM comes from his personal first-hand involvement in the “conversation,” and is substantiated in the articles, blogs, and books written by EMC personalities such as Brian D. McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Donald Miller, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Eddie Gibbs, Erwin McManus, Stanley Grenz, John Franke, Stanley Hauerwas, Steve Chalke, LeRon Shults, Chris Seay, Spencer Burke, Scot McKight, etc.
The books written by these ECM personalities are replete with statements and quotes that corroborate the assertions that Jason Carlson is uniquely qualified to make. I realize your blog is over two years old, and perhaps by now you have realized how ludicrous the tone of your blog sounds (20/20 hindsight has that affect). By now you have had ample time to re-read any ECM books you may own or needed to purchase (pro and con) to assist you to either refute or support Jason Carlson’s assertions, and not make your own vague generalities about Jason Carlson.
jcubed
June 25, 2009 at 10:31 am
Paula
Welcome to the conversation jcubed. I appreciate your passion. I am not sure that being directly influenced by those in the movement insulates one from making sweeping generalities especially in a movement where the leaders themselves do not claim to speak for one another nor for the movement.
Response to Recent Criticisms
“Contrary to what some have said, there is no single theologian or spokesperson for the emergent conversation. We each speak for ourselves and are not official representatives of anyone else, nor do we necessarily endorse everything said or written by one another.”click here
June 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm
jcubed
Thank you for your response and the two links you provided. I read both sources, and the latter, by Brett Kunkle, was quite informative. You were correct when you wrote that the ECM is, “a movement where the leaders themselves do not claim to speak for one another nor for the movement.” I’m sure you are familiar with this quote from Ted Kluck in the book, Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys That Should Be, coauthored with Kevin DeYoung: “Defining the emerging church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. The “what” and “who” of the movement are almost impossible to define.”
It has been my experience that people (excuse the generality) are deliberately vague for negative reasons. It is difficult to have a “conversation” with someone if (s)he is continually and purposely evasive. For instance, Brian McLaren stated, “I hesitate in answering “the homosexual question” not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be … pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question … Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. (ChristianityToday, Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html, January 23, 2006)”
I beg to differ with McLaren, and unfortunately, I do think he was being cowardly. Not in the fact that he was being sensitive in general or perhaps even sensitive to the Holy Spirit by not trying to win an argument or make a statement with an unbeliever that appears to be seeking. Rather, he wimped out by addressing “the homosexual question,” using the illustration he chose. I also beg to differ with McLaren when he says, “… pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question that being right or even honest.”
Because of God’s nature, He is incapable of err (righteous thought and action), which prohibits Him from being dishonest (untruthful). Take for instance, Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan women at the well. “He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly. (John 4:16-18 NAS)”
The crux of the evangelical view of McLaren’s generous orthodoxy (unorthodoxy) is not “the homosexual question,” but rather his low view of Scripture. The fact is, Jesus without provocation, called out the Samaritan women’s sins. Didn’t Paul identify fornication and homosexuality as sin? Paul said, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11 NASB)”
Paul enumerates their sins, including homosexuality, which Paul listed amongst several but not all sins (thoughts and actions). Paul said not to be deceived because the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, and he ends by saying “such were some of you.” The key word is “were.”
When Jesus taught about divorce, he said, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Mark 10:6-9 NAS)” From the beginning God made them “male and female” and they would leave who? That’s right, their “father and mother.”
Paul writes to the Hebrews, informing them of the consequence of habitual sin, stating, “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)”
So in light of the word of God, do you believe that Brian McLaren is correct, honest (truthful), and pastorally when he says, “Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality.”
I know that Brian McLaren and others like him do not speak for all men, women, and children who find themselves willfully or unwillfully amongst the emergent/emerging church. However, I see or hear of few within this movement, except Mark Driscoll, trying to reprove, rebuke or exhort (2 Tim 2:19) false teachers within their movement. Unfortunately, Brian McLaren and others (I mentioned in my earlier comments) are deluding not only themselves, but men, women, and children in the church (body of Christ) and misrepresenting Christ and Christianity to an unbelieving world.
All of us whether we are in the ECM or not, are accountable to God to preach the word (2 Tim 4:1-5) and expose deceivers (Titus 1:10-16). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and told them, “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 The 3:14-15)”
From the link you provided to me.
Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/Essential_Concerns_Regarding_the_Emerging_Church.pdf?docID=1441
McKnight rightly points out some things are not left on the table for reconsideration. He closes with this admonition:
‘Spencer, you’re a good guy. But I have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian theology back into your guide to eternity.”
I’m thankful for Scot McKnight’s admonishment of Spencer Burke and I applaud his exhortation to Burke to return to the gospel. Perhaps there is a ministry to the ECM within the ECM.
July 6, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Paula
jcubed, it is obvious that you have a great deal of passion towards the Word of God and I applaud your zeal. I believe that you have set up a strawman with this argument however. In citing the article from Christianity Today about Brian McLaren and this couple who approached him on his view of homosexuality, you have endeavored to say that those within the Emerging Church Movement do not have a high regard for Scripture. The article, in context, does not do that. It is easy to snatch statements out of their context and make them seem as if they are pointing in a direction in which they are not. When I read this article, I see Brian McLaren carefully handling a situation and finding out upon a later meeting that it was a good thing he did so. Did you read the whole article?
I do agree with you that the conversation does continue within the movement and I appreciate that about those involved. There is room for disagreement and room for correction. I appreciate that where there is room for these things there is also room for growth.