The Squareoff: John MacArthur vs. Emergent
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, December 12, 2006
- Viewed 185
- (85) comments so far
I rarely, rarely ever try to specifically talk about someone in a negative light, and I hope this isn’t negative against a person, but about their opinions. I received from a friend a mass letter going out to supporters of national radio preaching ministry. He sent it to me to read since the whole letter was about “the emerging church”.
I was really dismayed and saddened to read this letter he sent out. It was a fund raising letter for his radio ministry which I went on his radio ministry blog and found that my name was actually listed in his list of who he sees as emerging church leaders. So this became personal, since he mentions me on his radio blog and also raised my interest more in what he was saying in the letter.
Unfortunately, what I read in the letter was, in my opinion, hyper-exaggerations with nothing listed or a specific emerging church cited to back up his claims (at least in this letter). If I was a radio listener and didn’t know what the emerging church was about, after reading the letter I certainly would have my fear raised to find out how to avoid them as the letter says they are a “threat” and “the danger is real”. Many of the descriptions in the letter of “the emerging church” were ones that I commonly hear over and over again and most of them are much like a stereotyped cartoon caricature. Sadly, for the grandparents and parents and all those reading this letter, this stereotype is all they end up hearing which then forms their opinions. Let me show some examples of what he wrote in this letter:
“People who are drawn to the emerging church generally place high value on ambiguity and mystery. They reject the notion that God’s Word is clear, and anyone can understand its meaning. That means every doctrine you and I find precious is subject to new interpretation, doubt and even wholesale rejection. Everything is being questioned and deconstructed. Unlike the noble Bereans who used Scripture to test what they were taught and refine their understanding of the truth, people associated with the Emerging Church regard God’s Word as too full of mystery to warrant handling any truth in a definitive way.”
As I read this I am asking “What emerging church is he possibly talking about?” In our church, we actually use the Acts passage about the Bereans as one of our staple verses about what we try to do. He says that the Bereans are commended as they used to Scripture to “test what they were taught”, so why is it wrong when emerging leaders continue to do what the Bereans did? I learned from this very radio preacher in my early years in ministry that I should not just accept anyone’s teaching but to constantly be looking into the Scriptures and testing everything as the Bereans did. That is what I see many emerging leaders doing, so I am not sure what is wrong with that. I will comment on his words about doctrine and mystery in the next section.
He continued:
“The result is a movement that thrives on disorganization, lends itself to mysticism, distrusts authority and dislikes preaching, feeds intellectual pride and recognizes few (if any) doctrinal or moral boundaries. You can see why the movement is so appealing to college-age people young people - it is fleshly rebellion dressed in ecclesiastical robes.”
Again, as I read this, I am thinking “Who in the world is he talking about? “ That is so unlike any emerging church I have ever been to. It is describing something that really doesn’t exist. When he says that emerging churches “dislike preaching”, I have been to a dozen or more emerging churches and in every single one, they had preaching for at least 30 minutes long, and usually more like 40 minutes, sometime 45 minutes. In every one of them, they may not all have been teaching through entire books of he Bible (but several do), but they were teaching long sections of Scripture, not just isolated verses pulled out of context. People at the emerging churches I have been to had Bibles themselves with them or provided for them. Several of them had teaching handouts or notes. I don’t know what he is saying that they don’t like “preaching”. They may not like angry forms of preaching, or pastors whose preaching is more about being moral police to the world than about being a follower of Jesus type of preaching, or preaching that is not based out of the Scriptures but out of the pastors opinion - but to say that emerging churches don’t like preaching? I can only assume he has never actually been to an emerging church. I only see a renewed hunger for the Scriptures and teaching in emerging churches. Many have participation in preaching where questions are asked (like Jesus did in His teaching) so the learning and retention goes higher than just a one-way presentation. Many emerging churches I know offer theology classes and I don’t know what he is talking about when he says “they don’t like preaching”.
I also don’t know what he is talking about when he says they “thrive on disorganization”. Most emerging churches I know have leadership structures, teams, multiple home communities or house churches in addition to the weekend gatherings - which cause a need for a great deal of organization, leadership, accountability and structure. There might be some very small organic type of emerging churches out there that can be disorganized, so maybe he is thinking of some of them? But the ones I know are highly organized, even more so than many other churches because they involve more people in decision making than just the senior pastor, so it causes the need for a more organized structure than just a top-down type of structure. So, again - in my experience I have not seen a single emerging church which “thrives on disorganization”, quite the opposite.
When he says they all “lends itself to mysticism” - again, in every emerging church I have ever been to I have never seen any “mysticism” in how I imagine he is thinking of it. There is no mantras or mindless chanting or rubbing crystals or whatever he may be thinking. There is a lot of prayer in emerging churches, so maybe he is equating praying in worship gatherings with “mysticism”? I don’t know.
He says that emerging churches “recognizes few (if any) doctrinal or moral boundaries”. Again, I am surprised he didn’t take the time to go on some of the web sites of emerging churches - as he would have discovered that within a few mouse clicks he could have found that on almost every emerging church there are very clear “This is what we believe” doctrinal statements listing specific theological beliefs held to by the church. So where he is getting the information that most emerging churches don’t hold to doctrines? All the emerging churches I know believe in the inspiration of the Bible, the Trinity, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, and salvation in Jesus alone. You go on their web sites and you quite often see the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed listed. So to say emerging churches don’t have doctrines is very incorrect. There may be an isolated few that don’t, but the majority do. Put this to the test and go look on some emerging church web sites, and you will easily see why he is wrong with this.
He says that emerging churches recognize “few if any..moral boundaries” and that is why “it is so appealing to college-age people - it is fleshly rebellion..”. Again, who the heck is he talking about here? The emerging churches I have been to call people out on sin and un-Jesus-like behavior regularly. They confront those who are not taking care of each other, or being greedy and hoarding to themselves, or when they are not involved in the social justice the Bible so clearly speaks of that we should be involved with, or about repentance from all types of sin issues. I was just at an emerging church who called people to repent and allowed them to get on their knees in repentance. In our church a few months ago we taught a whole message on repentance. I listened on-line to a series in an emerging church that was on sexual purity and sex being designed within the covenant of marriage and sharing how sex outside of marriage would be sin. We did a whole series on this in our church and just 2 weeks ago in the sermon taught our position on homosexual practice. I don’t see emerging churches ignoring sin or repentance. So, I am wondering who where are these stories coming from? He doesn’t list a single emerging church who does these things, he simply paints a picture of mystical, anti-preaching, anti-doctrinal, anti-organization churches in a broad stereotypical way.
There was more to the letter, with similar things. But I better stop here, as this is already a very lengthy post. I seriously am not trying to be defensive, but it is hard not to when I see my name on the list on his web site, and the assumption is then all leaders listed are in churches like he described in the letter.
I would have hoped that the pastor would have done his research, visited emerging churches or called and asked leaders to describe what they do, or what doctrines they hold to. I think he would have learned from D.A. Carson’s over-generalization in his book on the emerging church of how he narrowly portrayed the whole emerging church according to one or two leaders instead of the whole of everyone - as so wonderfully pointed out in a recent lecture by theologian Scot McKnght. Scot actually has been to emerging churches and knows many of the leaders, so his critical analysis was really insightful of the book D.A. Carson wrote.
As Scot McKnight pointed out, “the emerging church” is not about one, two or three people. I travel a lot and I talk to a lot of people in what I would consider as missional emerging churches all across the country. There may be a very small percentage that possibly are ones this pastor would be concerned about, but the majority, not the minority, of “emerging churches” are absolutely nothing like he described. To his defense, perhaps this information was done by ill-informed students or others giving these descriptions of churches that don’t really exist, or if they do they are the rare ones, not the norm.
For those with concerns or for those who hear all these descriptions of “emerging churches” like the one in this letter, I would lovingly like to challenge you to to please actually check the sources of who is telling you about them. When someone starts saying with authority “This is what the emerging church is like..”, ask them if they have ever been to one. When I read all these very weird things said about emerging churches, ironically it is never based on anyone actually visiting one. When I ask someone where they heard these descriptions of emerging churches, it all comes from other sources, who have never been to an emerging church either.
These stereotyped descriptions about “the emerging church” going around like the ones written in the letter are like an urban legend. They are stories and caricatures that developed on the internet and repeated so many times over and over in various circles that it eventually becomes thought of as a fact. The Scriptures say in Matthew 12:36 that one day we will have to give an account to all the words we say, and I think we should be choosing our words very carefully when we accuse people of almost being heretical, like the letter pretty much was doing.
I just get so weary of these types of things. At the conference I blogged about in the last post, the same questions arose. I am all for always, always wanting to hear from people if something is going astray somewhere with me or our church, so I can be in constant check. So I never want to discount someone coming with an outside perspective and I always be open to listening. But these are the consistent caricatures that aren’t too helpful, since they are so over-exaggerated.
If you know me, you might be surprised I wrote this, as I normally don’t get defensive and I apologize if any of this is not coming out as loving. I am trying to write in love as best I can - but maybe by posting this, some may hear that they shouldn’t believe all the hear about the emerging church until they check one or two out themselves or talk to a leader themselves to see if letters like this one have truth or not or are about isolated churches or leaders and not the majority which aren’t like what is normally depicted.
This past summer we had two students from the seminary the pastor teaches at show up at our church for a visit. Afterward, one of them said “This is nothing like we thought it was going to be.” And they said how at the college the stereotype written about in the letter is what they hear on campus.
So, if there any critics or people who have these impressions of emerging churches, talk to one of us. Ask us questions. Visit our churches. You might be surprised when you actually find out what our beliefs and practices actually are. You’ll probably go after visiting one “Where is the mysticism? Where are the new-age mantras? How come people here are reading Bibles? I didn’t know you had sermons? You seem very organized, not disorganized and filled with chaos and rebellious like I heard. Your core theological beliefs are like the core beliefs at our church, I didn’t know that?” etc. You might be shocked that all the stories you hear about what most emerging churches do, are not real for the overwhelming majority, but more of an fictitious overblown stereotype that has developed.
I am being redundant, but next time you read on the internet or hear someone speaking on “the emerging church” and what it is like, ask them: “How many emerging churches have you actually been to? Where have you actually seen them doing these things you are describing? Have you actually seen in an emerging church people chanting and practicing Buddhist meditation? Have you been to an emerging church that didn’t have preaching? Or are these simply things you heard somewhere? If you did see them, what specific churches have you seen these things in? Is it one church or only one or two church leaders you are then making a conclusion it is the same for everyone else? Have you asked the leaders of emerging churches for doctrinal statements to see what they actually believe, or do you lump everything in together as assume the majority of emerging churches believes the same thing?” Be a Berean and test those who are teaching things about “the emerging church” to see if what they are saying is actually true.
Please don’t make a conclusion or talk about “the emerging church” based on reading or hearing about only one or two people and think the whole “emerging church” is all the same. Even the leaders you probably are critical of always are saying they don’t represent everyone. None of represents everyone. But, please ask us questions, please visit our churches. Don’t fall into believing urban legends or over-generalizations without checking them out. Please don’t stereotype the emerging church anymore.
Oh Lord Jesus. Come quickly. What a mess we sin-tainted human beings create. Please forgive us all.
SOURCE: http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/12/saddened_by_joh.html
FOR DISCUSSION: So… where do you weigh in on this subject?
John MacArthur has a new book coming out soon on the “Emergent” Church. In it, he really takes the emergent church to task over many things. But Dan Kimball, one of the outfront leaders in the EC movement takes issue with much of MacArthur’s leadership. I think you’ll be hearing alot of this debate in the near future… take a read at Dan’s post here (it’s rather long); and be sure to check out his blog for other details on this subject. You may not agree with everything (on either side of the issue) but it’s important to keep on top of things… Dan writes…
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Daniel on Wed, December 13, 2006
</i>What’s with the italics??
Hopefully Todd can sort this out… HTML to the rescue!
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Wed, December 13, 2006
It looks like Wendi started it. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
Todd Rhoades on Wed, December 13, 2006
fixed it! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Derek on Wed, December 13, 2006
I have to agree with Wendi (and others) in reference to John MacArthur. When I joined a charismatic church in the early 1990s. I had some “no-fun-damentalists” encourage me to read McArthur’s Charismatic Chaos. I read it years later and I had the same response that Dan Kimball did. I kept asking myself: “What kind of charismatic church is he talking about?” I have not given MacArthur much attention sense that time. I think the flaw in MacArthur’s research is that he lacks in-depth, first person research. IN Charismatic Chaos, he drew up a “straw man” based on every wacky charismatic phenomenon that had every been written about or re-told and he sold that as a picture of THE charismatic movement. It sounds like he is doing the same thing with the emergent church.
Derek
Aaron on Wed, December 13, 2006
I can see the lines being drawn as we blog. I agree with Wendi and Todd that J Mac followers will eat up the theological assertions as fact without investigating the facts. Those “emergent” preachers have a fairly wide range of theology. It is mainly that their books and services look fairly similar that they are cast together. The one thread that keeps all those “emergent” leaders together is the size of their vision and their capacity to speak to one another in a civil and caring manner. J Mac has done the same to “Christian Psychology” in the 80’s and Seeker Sensitive in the 90’s. The greatest shame is that those in the house of God cannot talk in love, which was suppose to be the identifying feature of Jesus disciples. This hostility towards other Christians is a large reason many don’t want to deal with us. And at times I can’t blame them. Sticking with only orthodoxy is a great challenge. How many of these who disagree have the apostles creed in their statement of faith, yet they find so many other areas to disagree.
Wendi on Wed, December 13, 2006
DanielR –
Well you just provided me with an interesting education about the IRD and their action committees, etc. Too his credit, at least JM and the other anti-seeker, anti-PD, anti-emergent types are focusing on what they believe to be some kind of a breach doctrinal orthodoxy. They could well liken themselves to the early reformers. But if the IRD indeed has the agenda you describe (political and social reform), their work is even more distasteful (can I say mean and divisive?)
But doesn’t JM have the same problem as the IRD in that he’s trying, as an outsider, to change every church that has embraced any amount of PD or “emergent” thinking. Why is it his business whether our church did 40-Days of Purpose? Who died and left him in charge of sound doctrine in all our churches? Isn’t there enough “reforming” to do in Sun Valley?
Wendi
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Wed, December 13, 2006
Wendi,
You’ll probably get a variety of opinions about the IRD, just like everything else. My main problem with them is that they are outsiders. That and the fact that their agenda is not theological reformation, but rather social and political in nature. They feel that if they can reform the mainline denominations, the mainline denominations will better support their vision of democracy.
They are much behind the pending schism in the Episcopal Church, and whether you agree or disagree with where the Episcopal Church is going/what they are trying, I think their problems and disagreements should be worked out “in house”, not influenced by outsiders. I have some friends in the Episcopal Church and while I disagree with some of what they do, my heart aches for them in what they are going thru.
I for one will keep trying to get my own house in order before trying to tell others how to put their houses in order. John McArthur seems to see all of Christianity as his “house” that he needs to put in order. I think that is presumptuous hubris on his part.
jeff on Wed, December 13, 2006
What’s really scary is the “fault-finding, accuser of the brethren” spirit that this type of accusation reaks of. I would be fearful of anyone proclaiming they have the corner on God and His Word. It was the religious leaders of Jesus’ day (Pharisees, Teacher of the Law), that were offended by Jesus’ actions to the point of saying he was a heretic, blasphemous and doing the work of Satan himself. Their power and authority was threatened by Him because in their eyes, they had it all figured out, and here comes this guy, claiming to have the real truth and doing things so unorthodox, and they completely missed Him, then had him crucified. Jesus blasted those who lived that kind of self-righteous, pious, judgmental lifestyle, which is how so many of those condemning the emerging church come across as. Historically, with every new move of God, there are those, who have built a tradition around their way of doing things, that come out and condemn it, because it goes against the way they do things. Time will tell that God is very much in the emerging church movement, but fallible humans are too, so we need to have grace in the midst of God’s movement as we progress, those things that are not of God, will fall away and die. It’s easy to manipulate people with scare-tactics such as these. So many people are so filled with fear that they will grab ahold of what they consider solid ground, just because this powerful figure or that powerful figure said this or that. The problem is that we are not looking at Jesus as our solid rock, but our way of doing things and our way of believing. We must embrace unity, not uniformity; diversity, without division; all this within the Body of Christ, because we are all Christ-followers first.
Leonard on Wed, December 13, 2006
So when is it okay to say, that is not right, that is not accurate or biblical? We know we don’t like the way BigMAC says it, but when am I my borthers keeper in regards to truth and theology?
Derek on Wed, December 13, 2006
Leonard—I think a better way to do it is through dialogue. I have not read JM thoughts on the Emergent Church, but my assumption is that he has not spent time in dialogue with leaders in the emergent dialogue, which is what the emergent guys are all about anyway. THere is not EMERGENT CHURCH, rather as they say, they are a conversation. It would be better for JM and others who catch a wiff of heresy to spend time in conversation with those who reek of unorthodox positions. I think that a more relational apporch gives you the opportunity to understand the context behind the ideas proposed by the emergent guys.
As we see in Dan Kimball’s post, he is already in a defensive position and so JM has probably ruined any kind of opportunity to sit with Kimball over a cup of organic milk and talk about the issues.
Derek
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Wed, December 13, 2006
Leonard,
I think when you truly believe someone is wrong, and wrong in a way that affects important stuff, not just differences in tradition or minor doctrinal differences, then you have a responsibility to talk to them. But it should be a conversation, not a rebuke or condemnation.
I’ve been approached both ways and the conversation has always been better received than the rebuke or the immediate condemnation.
John MacArthur seems to go right for the broad condemnation.
Daniel on Wed, December 13, 2006
Hey Todd, have you ever noticed that the comment header reads: “There are xx comentss”?
Wendi on Wed, December 13, 2006
Leonard,
I agree with Derek, face to face discussion is with the people of concern is not only more loving and biblical, it’s likely to be more effective. JM’s history however, of defamation and slander (IMO) has probably lost him any chance of a good discussion with those he has chosen to attack. Unless of course he went to them with his hat in his hand, sorry for his tactics and asking for forgiveness . . . which I don’t think is likely to happen.
You asked when YOU (Leonard) should be standing up for truth and doctrinal orthodoxy. How about this? You MUST do so with the people God has given you to shepherd. With those people you teach truth and you help them navigate the doctrinal waters of today’s writers and teachers and thinkers. As DanielR said, that is the house you must keep in order. In some cases, as the shepherd of the flock, you may have to provide a biblical rebuke, but even here you do so within the context of relationship.
And perhaps, if you are asked to comment on a particular subject in a broader context, you would prayerfully do so in a way that communicates grace to those asking for the comment and those listening in (I find it ironic that JM’s ministry is called “Grace to You”). What you would resist doing is barging, uninvited, into someone’s living room to clean their house. You might talk at length with members of your congregation about the issues in the news regarding the Episcopal church, and you should . . . you must!! But you wouldn’t try to infiltrate their organization so you can bring about a change in their theology (at least I don’t think you would). When someone in your congregation comes to you having just read “A Generous Orthodoxy” and they have questions, you would welcome the conversation and would probably point out some of your concerns with McLaren’s theology. But would you tell him Christianity Today is now an I think JM has used his writing and radio platform to try and infiltrate our churches in this way (really . . . I think it’s that covert). He’s crossed way over a line that I doubt most of us here would cross.
And Daniel,
What does it say about your personality that you are so observant about such things (which is a good thing I think, since it bugged you so much that people were spelling my name wrong)?
What’s your Myers/Briggs type? I think you are an ISTP. I think JM is an INTJ.
Wendi
Aaron on Wed, December 13, 2006
Great points Wendi. I am thankful to be in a church now that if I do make a mistake that they would speak to me in love and in private. If the mistake is in public then appropriate discussions would be done.
I agree that the argument is more for manipulation and selling books to a specific audience that will accept the assertions as true and build greater divide among God’s family. I grew up in a fundamental upbringing and have friends who still abide to the teachings. They do not understand why I spend time with the down and out and “pagans” of the culture.
As to the biblical rebuke, I can only do so in the confines of the relationships that I have built. If there are unorthodox views that are being taught then one should do as Jesus said,” You have heard it said, but now I tell you.” Do not attack character, motives, or name names. Instead speak with grace and truth. And live in peace with all our brothers and sisters. I think Paul said something about that in a letter.
Some people have different views of a word such as “grace”
Wendi on Wed, December 13, 2006
Oopsie –
This sentence in my previous post should read:
[But would you tell him Christianity Today is now an APOSTATE JOURNAL FOR USING MCLAREN AS AN EDITORITAL COMMENTATOR AND AWARDING HIS BOOK “A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN” (WHICH IS WAS TAUGHT AT HIS SHEPHERD’S CONFERENCE IN 2004). I think JM has used his writing and radio platform . . . ]
My phone rang in mid-sentence and I didn’t proof my comment before I posted.
Wendi
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment