Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll preached on the still popular and still controversial topic of emerging churches in his latest sermon. But it’s an issue he normally wouldn’t teach to his mainly twenty-something church crowd in Seattle.
That’s because Mars Hill attendants don’t use the language “emerging church” as many Christian leaders label them.
The issue of the emerging church, however, was raised when thousands of people, who regularly tune into Mars Hill sermons every week through the Internet, voted to make it the No. 2 most popular topic they wanted Driscoll to address in a sermon series titled “Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions.”
This past Sunday, Driscoll answered the specific question: “What can traditional/ established churches learn from ‘emerging’ churches?”
Defining traditional or established churches, the 37-year-old pastor said the context on which such churches were built was a culture that was primarily Christian in value. Most people were raised with some experience in church, most people went to church and they typically put on their best clothes for worship services that likely had a pastor wearing a robe, a choir, organ and hymnals. Also, mission works took place overseas where Christianity was not as dominant.
Today, the cultural context is starkly different in America.
Half the population is single, most people are living in the city and not in the suburbs, and most people didn’t grow up in the church or don’t have any church background at all, Driscoll said. Moreover, many recognize that missionaries are now needed in America where non-Christians would make up the fourth largest nation in the world, some say, according to the Mars Hill pastor, who did not grow up in Protestantism.
Within a more complicated context is a diverse range of Christian churches.
There are the fundamentalist Christians. For this group, Driscoll says everything goes into a “closed hand.” Not only does doctrine remain strict, which Driscoll agrees with, but so does the methodology which remains inflexible, rigid, outdated and “no fun.”
Then there are the liberals. They say they’re open with the methodology and the worship style and how to love people, but they’re also open about doctrine.
“We’re not sure if the Bible’s God’s word, we’re not sure if Jesus is God, we’re not sure if anybody’s going to hell,” Driscoll said, referring to liberals.
Denouncing such liberalism, the Mars Hill pastor stressed, “We’re supposed to be old Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians. Christianity doesn’t change. Now, the way it’s expressed culturally and demonstrated does change.”
At Mars Hill, doctrine is timeless but at the same time, methodology is timely.
“We’re theologically conservative and culturally liberal,” he often says.
Emerging churches
Emerging churches are known for flexible methodology and efforts to be culturally relevant. And while Driscoll places himself and his church in this group, he still breaks emerging churches down to four “lanes” or groups, some of which he questions.
In the first lane are emerging evangelicals who believe in the basic Christian doctrine, such as the Bible being God’s word and Jesus dying for our sins. They also tend to form the “hip, cool church,” according to Driscoll. Pastors who may fall in this category include Dan Kimball and Donald Miller.
“These guys are just trying to say, ‘Well, we’re not trying to change all of Christianity, we’re just trying to figure out and make church and Christianity more relevant, more applicable for people who otherwise have no interest in Jesus or church,’” said the Mars Hill pastor, who said he disagrees with this group on a few things such as having women pastors, but doesn’t find any major problems with them.
Comments
If it walks like an emergent, talks like an emergent, associates with emergents, promotes emergent, than it IS emergent. Mark Driscoll can use any label he wants, but an emergent by any other name is just as toxic. Mark Driscoll has caused a huge amount of spiritual confusion with his filthy mouth and his refusal to obey Scriptural injunctions regarding his speech and conversation. Anyone whose mouth spews corruption has a heart problem, and Mark, like so many other "relevant" emerging leaders, manifests that exact problem. He does not belong in the office of the holy ministry, period. Until he repents and begins to obey the Word, he is in the same camp with all the rest.
Quote by 29thCOA:
"find it quite disturbing myself to see Christians defaulting to labels that have but one purpose.... to defame and to silence by building the case with groups of believers into a modern day version of the label heretic, and then dismissing everything anyone says that they can stick that label on.
My personal experience has shown me that people who resort to the afrementioned tactics as well as being dismissive while showing no interest or intellectual honesty by actually examining what is being said, tend to have very weak beliefs. They rely on a herd menatality of commonly accepted doctrines, and then surround themselves with people who do nothing but agree with them.
This so called emergent church is scary to fundamentalists who have forgotten how to think on thier own and to challenge their own faith with God and in Jesus Christ. If a person is solid n their walk and relationship with God, they would follow what the bible says about judging others (labels and groups) and be Berans themselves."
The church today, COA, is seriously lacking - and that includes the Emergent church. If you judge the emergent church by scripture it comes up woefully short. Here's just one example. Paul said this to the Corinthians :
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Corinthians 2:15-17
What this means is that the church on both an individual and a corporate level is NOT supposed to be appealing to the world. It means that one who is in Christ will not be "attractive" to those who are not. But to those who are truly in Christ (and know the doctrine), they will be attracted and attractive to others in Christ. The emergent church wants the praises of the world by becoming "relevant" to the modern generation. Instead of relying on the old foundational Truth, they think it has to be repackaged. At the least, that is lack of faith and will do nothing for a lost world. At worst, it is love of the world and will continue to infect the church and reinforce the world's belief that the Christian church is no different from the rest of society. The church wants to "attract" the worldand make the gospel "relevant" - thus trying to APPEAL to the world rather than convict it (i.e. be the savor of death unto death that it should be). But then, if it really isn't of Christ, then we shouldn't be surprised to begin with because it will only appeal to its own anyway.
I find it quite disturbing myself to see Christians defaulting to labels that have but one purpose.... to defame and to silence by building the case with groups of believers into a modern day version of the label heretic, and then dismissing everything anyone says that they can stick that label on.
My personal experience has shown me that people who resort to the afrementioned tactics as well as being dismissive while showing no interest or intellectual honesty by actually examining what is being said, tend to have very weak beliefs. They rely on a herd menatality of commonly accepted doctrines, and then surround themselves with people who do nothing but agree with them.
This so called emergent church is scary to fundamentalists who have forgotten how to think on thier own and to challenge their own faith with God and in Jesus Christ. If a person is solid n their walk and relationship with God, they would follow what the bible says about judging others (labels and groups) and be Berans themselves.
I'm curious why Joel Osteen wasn't listed in the "emergent liberals" section?
By the Way - Hurrah for Mark Driscoll and the Mars Hill Church
RE: "feel-good message"
Actually the true gospel is "Good news" but to a sinful man's ears,
it's more of a "good news-bad news" proposition.
1.You are sinful and are dead and dying in your sins - bad news
2. Christ died for you and took your punishment - good news
3. You must repent of your sins, walk in a new way - bad news (to the old man)
4. Having done so, you are now a child of God and will not "perish" - good news.
The problem with the liberal churches nowadays is that they equivocate about the "bad news" portions of the gospel, afraid that they will offend: "everyone is inherently good"," there are many valid ways to get to God","I have to be true to myself and this is the way I am, I feel no need to change"," I don't believe a loving God would send me to hell just because I chose to ignore the gift of salvation the way that the Bible says it's supposed to be"
It's one thing to take harmless elements from culture in order to form a connection with those that you are evangelizing and cross that cultural boundary - It's an entirely different thing to compromise your values so that the "offense of the cross" is no longer offensive to those you claim to want to reach.
Paul spoke to the Athenians at Mars Hill by way of referring to the "Unknown God" - not that they might ADD this God to their pantheon, but rather that they would turn from their culture of false gods and embrace the one true God. How culturally relavant is that?
Secondly, and more pressing, what are you talking about? As far as the emerging churches go, I mean? Are they the ones with a "feel-good" message? I have read my bible, and that is why I challenge you on this point. The "feel-good" message is built in the Bible! It says I am going to Heaven, because my penalty was paid. It saysif I have faith, I get to have a real and personal relationship with The Author of all existence! So, please clarify what an "emergent" church is. Homosexuality, by the way, is no greater a sin than lying. One of my favorite passages declares that he who breaks the least of the Law, breaks all of it (paraphrase). We cannot say "we live by grace, not by law" if we don't a) know the Law and b) not do as Christ commands- which includes observing the Law!
I flagged myself,
Question, as I have a true berean spirirt: Is tailoring services to cultural landscape heresy? Did not paul do as much? I will say that tailoring Scripture to the same is heresy, but when someone will explain to me the heretical and pagan practices the established church has implemented (Easter eggs/ Bunny, Christmas trees, yule logs, gifts for children on december 25th, et al) then perhaps I will be able to subscribe to the theory ereging churches are a last days heresy. If you belive me in error describing the pagan roots of the rituals I've listed, you'd better do your homework.
would Mr. Mark Driscoll also like to speak a bit on Tony Campolo's views about Centering Prayer and using ancient techniques to draw closer to God? Would he also point out to the readers of this paper that Brian Mclaren one of the founders of the Emergent Church Movement has a very ambiguous view of hell and homosexuality? Why is it that postmodernism has to water down the Scriptures. If people would just read their Bibles, they wouldn't be influenced by a "feel-good" message that appeals only to the flesh, or to the twisting of Scripture. The Emergent Church is a last day heresy, whether this article will address it as such or not. Also, why does not Mr. Driscoll point out the numerous connections between "Emergent Christianity" and Bono from U2,COEXIST, Worldwide ecumenicalism, and Eastern Mystic practices such as contemplative spirituality which is more New Age in nature?
Thank you, thank you. I've been reading different opinions on this and trying to figure out what it all means. You have made it much clearer to me. I was about to throw it all out because I knew some of it sounded wrong. Now, I see it's like everything else. Whatever good is going on, someone will take it to extremes and distort it. I
I am glad that Mark is casting off what is becoming a stigma. Namely, the terms "Emerging or Emergent." Also while it is not mentioned in this article, the term "Missional," is being hijacked as well by those who will deny the absolute truth of the scripture. Mark describes 4 lanes, but there are countless others in the movement or should I say "conversation," that have denied the exclusive way to Slavation (Jesus), the existence of hell, and even the supreme place of scripture as an authority for living as a Christian. Its one thing to fight those that we know our outside of the the Christian faith, its quite another when the enemy is already in the camp and wearing our uniforms.