What is the Emerging Church Movement and Why I’m Post-Emergent

Technically speaking, the Emerging Church Movement is a re-packaging and re-imagining of liberal and Neo-Orthodox theology and thinking in a post-modern context. Put more simply, it is a reaction by liberal fringe theologians against the mass marketing and commercialization of Christianity by the mega-churches and the church growth movement.

If the Emerging Church Movement were a political party, they’d be the ‘Green Party’; having vaild complaints about commercialization but whose solutions are actualy worse than the problems their trying to correct.

The hallmark of their doctrinal and theological position is that it is fluid and indefinable. They spend a lot of time conversing about and nuancing theological theories. The more novel, creative and abstract the theory, the more they love it and converse about it.

Emerging is a great term for them because in reality they never arrive anywhere. In fact, one of the primary leaders within the movement is Brian McClaren. He is the author of one of the main books in the Emerging Movement called, A Generous Orthodoxy. One of McClaren’s key ‘talking points’ is that certainty and faith are mutually exclusive concepts. I call this, “McClaren’s Principle of Uncertainty.” This ‘principle’ is at the very heart and center of the Emerging Movement.

It would not be an overstatement to say that Mclaren is vehemently hostile to the idea that we can claim any degree of certainty about any point of truth. (And this hostility is mirrored by many followers of the Emergent Movement)

McClaren states over and over and over in his books and lectures that he despises every hint of certainty or assurance. He claims that it is arrogant and unspiritual to speak dogmatically about any point of spiritual truth.

McClaren’s favorite whipping boys are Radio Preachers. He says it makes him angry to listen to Christian radio and hear preachers who seem so sure that the doctrines they believe and teach are really true.

Brian McLaren's opinion is that “Authentic humility”, must start with a refusal to insist on the absolute truth of any given proposition.

I don’t know how anyone can miss the blatant contradiction in McClaren’s position. On the one hand, he despises anyone who seems sure that the doctrines they believe are true. Yet, McClaren is absolutely certain that his doctrine of uncertainty is absolutely true.

It is precisely this principle of uncertainty that makes the Emergent Movement so seductive and dangerous. On the one hand, the Emergents appear loving, tolerant, and open minded to all religious views. On the other hand, this uncertainty robs Emergents of the promises held out to us in the scriptures for our salvation.

The saddest and most dangerous example of this is seen in how the Emerging Church deals with Christ’s Death on the Cross.

Emergent leaders and followers openly attack the doctrine of Christ’s sacrificial atonement for the sins of the world in their writings, lectures and websites. The Emergents argue that, the penal substitionary theory of the atonement is only one of many explanations for Jesus’ death on the cross. Because Emergents value uncertainty, anyone making the exclusive and certain claim that Jesus died for our sins, is rejected and ridiculed.

When I’ve tried to discuss the scriptural support and evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross as a sacrifice and atonement for our sins with Emergent followers, I was told that, “Scripture simply does not propose a theory of cohesive theology of atonement.” That “it’s only one theory and only one aspect of the atonement.” While other Emergent followers were openly hostile to the idea that Jesus died for them by saying things like, “I don’t want to have the guilt of having someone die for me” and, “the idea that God punished Jesus for my sins is repugnant to me because it sounds like cosmic child abuse.”

The Bottom Line: The Emergent Movement claims to be a church movement, but the fruit of this fad is utter uncertainty and an absolute denial of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus death on the cross for our sins.

These two facts alone are enough to brand the Emerging Movement as heretical and anti-Christian. This is also why I’ve started the Post-Emergent Movement. People in the Emerging Movement need a real alternative to the lies and uncertainty that their being fed by leaders such as McClaren and McKnight.

For those within the Emerging Church, I would assure them that scripture offers humanity a sure and certain faith in Jesus Christ. The scriptures tell us plainly and clearly that God is offering all of humanity salvation and peace with Him through the victorious death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. These promises are true, these promises can be believed with certainty and these promises can set you free from the tyranny of uncertainty. In short, Jesus Christ died for YOU. Repent and believe the Gospel!

Comments

[Micah]

The concept approach to this movement kind of reminds me of "Pot" talk. Where you sit around and talk things out till they become meaningless, and the whole ideas presented can be lost in the next session that is undertaken.

[Orycteropus Afer]

I'm happy to tell you that this post won an Aardie. Congratulations on a job well done

[Weekend Fisher]

Hi there

The rebuttal of emergents being certain of the lack of certainty left me smiling. It was well worded.

Still -- and really I've never had anyone call me emergent, I'm confessional Lutheran by choice not by birth -- I'd have to say "penal substitutionary" atonement and "Christ died for me" are not equivalent statements. Christ died for me. Still, "penal substitution" is just the tip of the iceberg about what Christ has done for us in the atonement.

Take care & God bless

[Sean Jutzi]

Hi,
You make some excellent points in your exposure of Emergent heresies, the one of greatest concern to me is the denial of the sufficiency of Christ's atoning death and resurrection--without these we have no salvation--and how can faith and certainty be divorced? My bible still says that "I live by faith in the Son of God" (Galatians 2:20). The point I wanted to make, in conjunction with your refutation, is that the Emergent Church movement has been deceived by a satanic doctrine that started in the Garden--wherein the devil sowed seeds of doubt in Adam and Eve concerning God's will, authority, and truthfulness. There is nothing new under the sun, and what's worse, the Bible says this sort of nonsense is going to get much worse (Mark 13).
* Keep fighting the good fight of faith, God Bless!

[Lowell]

Christ Died For Me, of this I am Vehemently Certain. I make this statement with Authentic humility, cause I know I NEED IT.

The motive behind this whole Emerging Church thing is discomfort with what the Bible says, in the gospel and about sin, virtue...
They don't like it. This is just another way to to put their Judgement over God'.

The Emerging Church sanctifies culture. This Emerging church sanctifies the post-modern culture as legitimate. All the Prophets have spoken against the cultures of their time. The Bible does not change, it doesn't adapt to culture. It confronts culture with unchanging truth in every situation. The Emerging Church is unwilling to believe the clear statement of Scripture, but it's is also unwilling to take the clear Scripture and confront the culture. It wants to let the culture define what Christianity should be.

[dad dog]

I think the emergent church is just the latest version of liberal theology, with the same positive and negative aspects.

Just like the modern, liberal "mainstream" church, the emergent church has it right in terms of how to live out our faith (social justice, community, etc.). I agree: we need to get out of our pews and be the Kingdom of God, here and now, to this world. See, e.g., Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy."

However, they appear to also follow the liberal mainstream church's ways when it comes to doctrinal error: "The Bible means what I want it to mean." (I.e., "did God really say that?," Gen. 3:1.)