I remember being very attracted to the Emergent Church movement. It spoke of being a new kind of Christian, which was the title of Brian McLaren's book. It seemed like a very earnest effort to deconstruct and reconstruct American Evangelicalism. I had wondered whatever happened to the Emergent movement. Your article helped me understand why it fizzled out. Drawing from the rich stores of Scripture and church history has been much more enlightening and sustaining than any postmodern innovation.
Haha I just wrote about deconstruction as well, and sourced my favorite novel from 1847 which touches on this topic SO WELL. I have found there is nothing more encouraging for today than looking at the past (and coupled with that- the future).
Absolutely agree that the Church must always look back to its sources. Those sources are not only in Sacred Scripture, but in the Sacred Tradition in which it grew, and in the practices of the early Church. Those are the anchors. If you are only looking back to the Reformation, you are not looking back far enough.
Thanks for your article, which I’ve read several times now; I have also read the RNS article by KSP to which you are responding. Two observations: 1) you do not appear to agree with her premise that there is a pervasive connection between the failings of individual leaders and the culture and/or structure of evangelicalism. In your view these are all isolated incidents that echo the moral failings of leaders seen constantly throughout church history. In essence, “Nothing to see here, move on…” 2) you also spend the last half of the article addressing the emerging church of the late 90’s, how Mark Driscoll was a response to that movement, and how the downfall of both can be traced to a “front-facing” rather than “rear-facing approach to ministry. That second point is interesting, but in my view not at all related to the KSP article. I agree that we need to look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. And I like your appeal to learn from Church history. But the conclusion I draw from the history of Israel and of the Church is that God never minimizes sin. There are times of exile and destruction. There are times when a reformation is needed. Prophetic voices who point out the need for repentence are often shouted down or ignored. But God will have his way before bringing restoration. I'm with KSP on this one.
Hi Samuel, I appreciate your perspective on this critical topic. I would like to push back somewhat on your narrative about Driscoll and the Emergent movement. It is true that Driscoll spent some of his early days associated with the Emergent movement, but he changed. He ultimately disconnected himself from nearly the entire set of Emergent values and (as is widely known) actually became far more connected to the neo-Reformed / Act29 ideology, which served him well as he consolidated power, built a multi-campus mega church, called on men to take up arms in the culture war, and pushed a hierarchal model of gender relations.
This change is clearly evidenced in his own words and actions. The CT podcast plays clips of some of the things that he said early on which were in line with the broad values of the Emergent movement. For example, there is a clip of him speaking in 2001 about the need to deemphasize the power of the pulpit, remove the concept of the senior pastor, and empower other communicators and avenues for communication. This move towards a more egalitarian form of church leadership and expression is a core Emergent value, which Mark ultimately wholly abandoned. He also clearly moved on from other Emergent values around church scale, open dialogue, ecumenism, creativity, and essentialist Christocentrism.
To greater understand the Emergent movement and its core values, I recommend Gerardo Marti’s book The Deconstructed Church: Understanding Emerging Christianity. While, as you have noted, Emergent concerns include authenticity and engagement with postmodernism, there is a much more robust set a values beyond that which you have not engaged with. There is far more substance to the Emergent ideology than just ‘raw’ and ‘real’ feeling. Much of what informs the Emergent movement is in fact highly rear-facing, weighing 1,500 years of pre-Reformation thought and practice more heavily than most American evangelicals. In short, the hyper-masculine Mars Hill mega church can in no way be characterized as Emergent; any amount of Emergent values in Driscoll’s roots had long been abandoned by the time the church reached that form.
Lastly, the ethos of the Emergent movement is far from expired. In fact your writing of this article is a testament to its present relevance. Though the more popular word these days is ‘deconstructed’, the spirit and values of the Emergent movement are alive and well and embodied in many local expressions of faith and in the broad and ubiquitous deconstruction movement.
This raises the criticality of history and presents an important aspect of the current necessary discussion. That being truth. You engage how to deal with or consider the truth that history presents. What we are consistently and even increasingly called to contend with is a dishonest telling of both Church and American history.
Calls to nuance are often efforts to consider sin as something other than it is and certainly to obscure the implications of it. For decades it has been fine to call out certain liberation theology pastors sin their error and unambiguously regard them as false teachers. Yet even in reading the erroneous doctrine of puritans and other early Church fathers, their regard as heroes of the faith remains intact. The dishonest measure and unequal waiting is irreconcilable. To address it is to be deemed an agitator.
This isn’t only the case with liberation theology. It also occurs in the mainline church vs conservative discussion. Take a Cs Lewis holding Inclusivism and purgatory. This when considered in the more liberal Church yields a swift and unobscured assessment of false teaching. Yet Lewis remains esteemed and is presented from pulpits, Sunday school lessons and seminary. We can look to Robert Lewis Dabney and Jonathan Edwards on matters of race and the imago Dei and neighbor love. Both were in grave error. So arises blindspots and men of their times. This despite the likes of Benjamin Lay and Spurgeon along with John Brown. The untenable position that over centuries the majority of the Church would suffer a common blindspot even with the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God has gone largely accepted. So it is , the truth about what lies men of God have told on God and the reaping such sowing yields in their unrepentant past as well as those who would follow them and esteem them as orthodox despite the errors exhibited in written defense of enslavement and African inferiority based on scripture is what we must solidify. Only then can we address what to do with that truth. The Church has done this and continues to in polemics towards those deemed not heroes.
Hi Samuel, I enjoyed the article, though I'm not clear what events or periods in church history are similar to 2021, though I'd argue that the "uniqueness of the times" commenced in 2016. I'd also add that deconstruction may very well be needed for some, though reconstruction would be the goal on the other side of the rot.
"We should be rear-facing, not insisting on the uniqueness of the times or the unprecedented nature of our challenges."
I remember being very attracted to the Emergent Church movement. It spoke of being a new kind of Christian, which was the title of Brian McLaren's book. It seemed like a very earnest effort to deconstruct and reconstruct American Evangelicalism. I had wondered whatever happened to the Emergent movement. Your article helped me understand why it fizzled out. Drawing from the rich stores of Scripture and church history has been much more enlightening and sustaining than any postmodern innovation.
Haha I just wrote about deconstruction as well, and sourced my favorite novel from 1847 which touches on this topic SO WELL. I have found there is nothing more encouraging for today than looking at the past (and coupled with that- the future).
Absolutely agree that the Church must always look back to its sources. Those sources are not only in Sacred Scripture, but in the Sacred Tradition in which it grew, and in the practices of the early Church. Those are the anchors. If you are only looking back to the Reformation, you are not looking back far enough.
upon reading this, the only thing I wish to say is this; God is the same yesterday, today, and every tomorrow. I hope this helps.
This is probably the most comments I've seen on a post of yours lately, lol. Wonder why...
-thinking emoji-
Thanks for your article, which I’ve read several times now; I have also read the RNS article by KSP to which you are responding. Two observations: 1) you do not appear to agree with her premise that there is a pervasive connection between the failings of individual leaders and the culture and/or structure of evangelicalism. In your view these are all isolated incidents that echo the moral failings of leaders seen constantly throughout church history. In essence, “Nothing to see here, move on…” 2) you also spend the last half of the article addressing the emerging church of the late 90’s, how Mark Driscoll was a response to that movement, and how the downfall of both can be traced to a “front-facing” rather than “rear-facing approach to ministry. That second point is interesting, but in my view not at all related to the KSP article. I agree that we need to look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. And I like your appeal to learn from Church history. But the conclusion I draw from the history of Israel and of the Church is that God never minimizes sin. There are times of exile and destruction. There are times when a reformation is needed. Prophetic voices who point out the need for repentence are often shouted down or ignored. But God will have his way before bringing restoration. I'm with KSP on this one.
Hi Samuel, I appreciate your perspective on this critical topic. I would like to push back somewhat on your narrative about Driscoll and the Emergent movement. It is true that Driscoll spent some of his early days associated with the Emergent movement, but he changed. He ultimately disconnected himself from nearly the entire set of Emergent values and (as is widely known) actually became far more connected to the neo-Reformed / Act29 ideology, which served him well as he consolidated power, built a multi-campus mega church, called on men to take up arms in the culture war, and pushed a hierarchal model of gender relations.
This change is clearly evidenced in his own words and actions. The CT podcast plays clips of some of the things that he said early on which were in line with the broad values of the Emergent movement. For example, there is a clip of him speaking in 2001 about the need to deemphasize the power of the pulpit, remove the concept of the senior pastor, and empower other communicators and avenues for communication. This move towards a more egalitarian form of church leadership and expression is a core Emergent value, which Mark ultimately wholly abandoned. He also clearly moved on from other Emergent values around church scale, open dialogue, ecumenism, creativity, and essentialist Christocentrism.
To greater understand the Emergent movement and its core values, I recommend Gerardo Marti’s book The Deconstructed Church: Understanding Emerging Christianity. While, as you have noted, Emergent concerns include authenticity and engagement with postmodernism, there is a much more robust set a values beyond that which you have not engaged with. There is far more substance to the Emergent ideology than just ‘raw’ and ‘real’ feeling. Much of what informs the Emergent movement is in fact highly rear-facing, weighing 1,500 years of pre-Reformation thought and practice more heavily than most American evangelicals. In short, the hyper-masculine Mars Hill mega church can in no way be characterized as Emergent; any amount of Emergent values in Driscoll’s roots had long been abandoned by the time the church reached that form.
Lastly, the ethos of the Emergent movement is far from expired. In fact your writing of this article is a testament to its present relevance. Though the more popular word these days is ‘deconstructed’, the spirit and values of the Emergent movement are alive and well and embodied in many local expressions of faith and in the broad and ubiquitous deconstruction movement.
This raises the criticality of history and presents an important aspect of the current necessary discussion. That being truth. You engage how to deal with or consider the truth that history presents. What we are consistently and even increasingly called to contend with is a dishonest telling of both Church and American history.
Calls to nuance are often efforts to consider sin as something other than it is and certainly to obscure the implications of it. For decades it has been fine to call out certain liberation theology pastors sin their error and unambiguously regard them as false teachers. Yet even in reading the erroneous doctrine of puritans and other early Church fathers, their regard as heroes of the faith remains intact. The dishonest measure and unequal waiting is irreconcilable. To address it is to be deemed an agitator.
This isn’t only the case with liberation theology. It also occurs in the mainline church vs conservative discussion. Take a Cs Lewis holding Inclusivism and purgatory. This when considered in the more liberal Church yields a swift and unobscured assessment of false teaching. Yet Lewis remains esteemed and is presented from pulpits, Sunday school lessons and seminary. We can look to Robert Lewis Dabney and Jonathan Edwards on matters of race and the imago Dei and neighbor love. Both were in grave error. So arises blindspots and men of their times. This despite the likes of Benjamin Lay and Spurgeon along with John Brown. The untenable position that over centuries the majority of the Church would suffer a common blindspot even with the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God has gone largely accepted. So it is , the truth about what lies men of God have told on God and the reaping such sowing yields in their unrepentant past as well as those who would follow them and esteem them as orthodox despite the errors exhibited in written defense of enslavement and African inferiority based on scripture is what we must solidify. Only then can we address what to do with that truth. The Church has done this and continues to in polemics towards those deemed not heroes.
Hi Samuel, I enjoyed the article, though I'm not clear what events or periods in church history are similar to 2021, though I'd argue that the "uniqueness of the times" commenced in 2016. I'd also add that deconstruction may very well be needed for some, though reconstruction would be the goal on the other side of the rot.
"We should be rear-facing, not insisting on the uniqueness of the times or the unprecedented nature of our challenges."