I continue to get a variety of questions from people who ask whether we should like or dislike the Emerging Church movement. If you’ve read this blog for any length of time you will know that I don’t believe there is much of an answer to that question. I believe that the EC movement is too diverse and too large to be labeled as simply “good” or “bad”. We’ve essentially got to consider each church on an individual basis.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA preached a message this past Sunday dealing with the topic of the EC movement. It wasn’t new material for me but enough of you have asked about it that I think it would be good to post it so that you can consider it.  

Well, not exactly, but this is a very good attempt at wading through the various streams of Christian thought from Fundamentalism all the way to beyond Emerging to full blown liberalism. I’d recommend that you take a look at it if you have studied the Emerging church at all. You can read it here.

HT: Jason Allen

This week, for Weekend Worship, I want to feature one of my favorite modern day songwriters and worship leaders. David Crowder is the Pastor of Music and Arts at University Baptist Church in Waco, Texas. He also happens to be the frontman for the David Crowder Band. Finally, and most importantly, he is my daughter, Grace’s favorite worship leader. This video was taken while he was leading worship at the Passion ‘05 gathering in Atlanta, GA. The song speaks, as do many Crowder songs, to the greatness of God.

I’ve been contemplating the sovereignty of God a great deal lately. For a sermon a week or two ago I came across this quote by A.W. Pink:

The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is “The Governor among the nations” (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

What a powerful reminder of the greatness of our God! That is the kind of King that I want to serve! This song serves as a wonderful reminder of God’s greatness. I hope you enjoy it this weekend. I’ll see you in church on Sunday!

In this area of confusion across the Missouri Baptist Convention concerning Acts 29 other conservative groups, these words from Dr. Mark Dever ring not only true but are much needed. Dever offered them this week while speaking at the Acts 29 Boot Camp in Chicago, IL.

Our differences are enough to separate some of my friends—your brothers and sisters in Christ—from you. And perhaps to separate them from me, now that I’m publicly speaking to you. And I don’t want to minimize either the sincerity or the seriousness of some of their concerns (things like: humor, worldliness, pragmatism, authority).

But I perceive some things in common which outweigh our differences—which the Lord Jesus shall soon enough compose between us, either by our maturing, or by His bringing us home. I long to work with those, and count it a privilege to work with those whom My Savior has purchased with His blood, and with whom I share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I perceive that we have in common the knowledge that God is glorified in sinners being reconciled to Him through Christ. This is not taught by other religions, nor clearly by the ancient Christian churches of the East, or by Rome, by liberal Protestant churches, by Mormons, the churches of Christ, or by groups of self-righteous, legalistic, moralistic Christians. And not only do we together affirm the exclusivity of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone—we agree on the sovereignty of God in life and salvation, the regenerate nature of church members, the importance of church membership and discipline, the baptism of believers alone, the priorities of expositional preaching, and evangelism, the importance of authority and a growing appreciation for the significance of complementarianism. These are not slight matters. And they only fire my desire to encourage you and cheer you on, until you cross that finish line that the Lord lays down for us.
HT: Timmy Brister

Suppose you and I were conversing and you shared with me that you had found the most phenomenal stock tip ever known. Suppose, then, that you encouraged me to invest in that option because of the results that you were sure were coming. At that point I would most likely ask you how much you had personally invested in the stock and suppose that you answered, $0. I think it would be safe to say that I would find your sales pitch hardly believable.

When one looks at statistical data concerning the traditional church they might be convinced that although orthodoxy has been trumpeted as a priority, it has only occured at the expense of orthopraxy. Church members are attending church, involved in “ministry” even, but cannot articulate a biblical worldview or even a concise understanding of what it means to be a believer of Jesus Christ. In other words, the sales pitch rings hollow. When looking at the Emerging Church movement, there is a passionate attempt to rediscover a commitment to orthopraxy which I think should be celebrated. Now, I also have a bit of critique for the approach, as it is fleshed out in some contexts, but I’ll save that for the end of the article.

T.S. Elliott once said

“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.”

What seems to be driving much of those involved in the EC movement is founded in a violent reaction against the perceived failures in the Evangelical church. On top of that list of frustrations would be the lack of changed lives by those who claim to be adherents of the Christian faith. They read passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:17,

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

and they wonder where the new is? I would argue that their concern is more than legitimate. Scot McKnight, who is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University (Chicago, Illinois) and is also widely considered a premier researcher of the EC movement, recently wrote the following, which seems to adequately sum up the thoughts of many within the EC movement.

First, orthodoxy is nothing without orthopraxy. Believing right things, and grounding our ideas solidly on solid scriptural studies (and knowing what is important from what is not) is good; but if we do not “perform” that orthodoxy in an orthopraxy we are clanging cymbals and noisy gongs. [Found Here]

There is little doubt that the traditional evangelical church has embraced “church growth” in many ways so thoroughly that they have rejected any attempts at defining authentic faith as well as listing expectations for those who want to join their faith families. Rather than raise the theoretical bar, so to speak, they have lowered it in an attempt to gain as many as possible. Before you think I am only critical of those who embrace “church growth” (btw, I’m of the opinion that there is significantly more good in the CG movement than bad), we should also be reminded that in traditional churches that there seems to be a great concern that leads us to shy away from offending our “brothers and sisters” in such a way that we will simply avoid any attempt to call sin in the camp exactly what it is, sin. This lack of church discipline and heightened expectations has driven the evangelical church away from its roots of discipleship, or sanctification. This two pronged approach to church life has helped move us to this current place where our churches may be filled with as many non-believers who are convinced that they are believers as we are filled with authentic followers of Jesus Christ. As such, many within the EC movement have embraced the pursuit of orthopraxy.

Now, having established the strength of embracing orthopraxy, I want to critique many within the movement as well, who take this thought process to an unnecessary, and biblical unfaithful, end. Let me start by offering the second half of McKnight’s quote.

I see a move in the younger generation that is fed up with the orthodoxy that is not performed, and I see some tendencies to debunk the former in favor of the latter. And I don’t blame them. But, at some point we realize we need both — like needing two loving parents. Both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are good and both are loving, and when they kiss we become what we are meant to be. [Found Here]

McKnight is absolutely right in that orthopraxy cannot exist apart from orthodoxy. Just as orthodoxy apart from orthopraxy is wasted and pointless, orthopraxy cannot exist without some absolute truth explaining what “right behavior” looks like. There are some within the EC movement who have moved so far that rather than simply embrace orthopraxy, they have done so at the expense of faithful orthodoxy. Consider, for instance, the words of Tony Jones who serves as the National Director of Emergent, a more liberal organization within the EC movement.

“Orthodoxy is a happening, an occurrence, not a state of being or a state of mind or a statement.” [Found Here]

Inherent within this unfortunate position is a rejection of any propositional truth, rather it lends itself to situational ethics and personally defined morality. Just as with any other beliefs found within the walls of the Christian faith that stand apart from biblical truth, this must be rejected. It’s funny to me that this is said by one who would purport to support the claims of scripture which is, by definition, a collection of statements of fact.

Regis Nicholl, recently wrote the following,

Orthopraxy? By all means. We Christians need to do a better job of aligning our hands with our heads. And that begins by making sure that what’s in our heads is aligned with a biblical worldview.

“It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” [Found Here]

Once again, the point is well made. Our actions must be changed actions if we are to be called followers of Christ and for that we applaud the move towards orthopraxy. Those movements, however, can only exist as holy actions if they do so after being informed by God’s words, hence the necessity of orthodoxy. So, let us together thank many in the EC movement for their reminder of the importance of right behavior, but let us together endeavor to not miss the significance of right belief as well.

I received this notice from Darren Casper who is managing “Show Me Church Partnership Church Planting Fund” which was set up to assist those pastors who lost funding due to the recent decision by the MBC Executive Board.

UPDATE: SHOW ME PARTNERSHIP CHURCH PLANTING FUND

While there were efforts by some state leaders to go ahead and fulfill the existing funding commitment, it now appears certain that Acts 29 churches will lose their funding by the Missouri Baptist Convention.

St. Louis Metro has kicked in $5,000 to get this fund rolling and the other checks are starting to come in. We are somewhere around $9,000 now, but closer to $26,000 is needed to fund these church plants.

Each of these church plants have been in good standing with the Missouri Baptist Convention and have expressed commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message as well as their partnering relationship with the Acts 29 network.

An accurate record is being kept by our office staff of funds received, distributed, and contributing partners. Unless you tell me otherwise, these churches will know of all the individuals, organizations, and churches that have contributed to the fund. If you have questions, or would like to contribute to this fund:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
Attn. Darren Casper - Church Planting
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044
314.571.7579 x. 103
dcasper@stlbaptist.org

I thought it would be good today to mention a couple of events coming in the next few days that I’m excited about.

First, for those who are part of the Frederick Family, don’t forget our new message series. We will begin The Bible & The Bush this coming Sunday! I promise you that it will be an interesting look at lessons that God taught me in Africa and how those lessons apply in the life of our church. This series will set the stage for much of what we want to do in ministry at Frederick Boulevard.

Secondly, for those who read this blog regularly, I will begin a new series next week entitled “A Two Way Conversation”. In Mars Hill Church’s upcoming series “Ask Anything” series, Mark Driscoll will attempt to answer the question, “What can traditional/established churches learn from “emerging” churches?” I also received an email that asked me what benefit there is in the Emerging Church movement. These two things have caused me to think more about the EC of which I am not really a part, but am sympathetic to at times. As such I will begin this short 3 article series looking at 3 areas in which I believe the EC movement speaks to those of us in more traditional churches. It should be a lot of fun.

The statistics are in and prove the point that many of us have tried to make for sometime and that is that the SBC is becoming increasingly irrelevant to younger leaders. In fact, according to these stats, they appear to be leaving our convention as fast as they can get their feet under them. It is far beyond time that we simply look around and write off those leaving as if they are doing so because of their immaturity or unorthodox doctrinal positions. Too many are leaving for that to be true. Those, and other excuses like them, are merely convenient opportunities to avoid the real issues. The question we must ask now is why they are these younger pastors &/or staff people leaving and can we adjust our convention to retain them? If we do not, our convention, and worse than that the Cooperative Program, will be reduced to denominational rubble in a matter of two to three decades.

In his “Presedential Perspective” article, LifeWay President Thom Rainer asks some good questions that I think are worth considering. He writes three paragraphs in particular that I am convinced are right on target. Consider these words:

Younger leaders see a decreasing relevance in the denomination and older leaders are not adequately casting a dynamic vision. Whereas older leaders connect tradition with loyalty, younger leaders connect loyalty with purpose. They want to see tangible reasons for engaging in the denomination’s effort. The denomination desperately needs an infusion of their creativity and passion.

There is cause for concern. The lack of involvement does not bode well for the legacy of the SBC. Our denomination is more than 150 years old and the Cooperative Program is 75. A significant amount of gospel-proclaiming work has been done throughout the world in that time. God has been so gracious to bless us with each precious soul won to His glory. We really can do more together than we can do apart. How I pray younger generations can get that. How I pray older generations will teach that in edifying and encouraging ways while incorporating the best of what younger generations have to offer.

How I pray we will rise above the things that distract us for the sake of the gospel.

Rainer is absolutely right. The younger generations, of which I am a part, are not satisfied to remain loyal for the sake of remaining loyal. There must be purpose infused into our activity if we are to be seen as relevant, and even more importantly, if we are to actually be relevant.

This is not a denominational issue, however, in my opinion. No, this is a local church issue. Our denomination does nothing more than reflect the norms of our churches. If we are to fix this problem all the Executive Board decisions in the world will not advance our cause if they are cut off from local church application. We must, at the local level, say that “enough is enough”. We must ask the hard questions and be ready to absorb the hard answers if we are to change and become effective again.

Thank goodness there are still men like Rainer and Ed Stetzer in the SBC, who find the gospel important enough that they are committed to pursuing its advance, regardless of the cost that may come their way. Surprisingly enough, they even like to hang out with Acts 29 churches. Hmm, I wonder if they’re on to something?

When it comes down to it, the ultimate question that must be asked is how important the gospel is to us? Is it important enough that we can allow each other to disagree on nominal issues and work together, unified by our common agreement on the essentials of the faith or are we so concerned with “doctrinal unanimity” that we stand by arguing points of eschatological or sociological differences while our neighbors die and spend eternity separated from God?