Home

About

Statement of Faith

Living Faith

Stay Alert!

Examining the
Watchtower

Truth Claims Within
Evangelicalism

Truth Claims Within
Popular Culture

Links

Services

Contact Us

The Emerging Church, Part 1: An Overview

 

                                                                                          Print/Download: PDF DOC WPD

  Several people asked me what I knew about the Emerging Church, and I found it difficult to give a definitive answer. Originally, my knowledge of the Emerging Church was fairly limited, but my inquisitiveness caused me to delve further. What I discovered after digging deeper was at times refreshing, at times provocative, and at times maddening. Some of what I read was at best undiscerning, and at worst, heretical. Finding quotes such as “Is the Bible the best God can do?”¹ and “The point of the cross isn’t forgiveness,”² I felt I had to speak out on this topic. You are invited to read along as the story of the Emerging Church unfolds.

 

Jump to:   Part 2    |    Part 3    |    Part 4    |    Part 5    |    Part 6    |    Part 7    |    Part 8

(Each part of this series may be referenced or downloaded separately at www.soundwitness.org/evangel/index.html.)

 

  In an ABC News Nightline report on the Emerging Church, Host Martin Bashir begins the show with a bit of journalistic sensationalism by stating “...a brand new breed of church is pushing the envelope in a whole new way.” ³ Correspondent Laura Marquez then goes on to report on several Emerging Churches, accenting rock music, a setting more resembling a coffee house than a church, an Advent wreath made out of a tire, and a dog accompanying its owner to Communion. While these attributes may be descriptive of some Emerging Churches, they are more “novelty” than helpful insight. In this 8-part article, I will attempt to separate the fluff from the fact, emphasizing what it is the Emerging Church is saying about itself, and comparing that conversation with Scripture to determine if what is being said is sound.

  The Emerging Church, also called the Emergent Church, had its start in the last quarter of the 20^th century. It began in recognition of a need to witness to postmodern people, a group that is sometimes difficult to connect with. To understand the Emerging Church and its witness, a prior exploration of modernism and postmodernism will be helpful.

  Modernism’s beginning has been variously reported from the end of the 18^th to the last half of the 19^th century.⁴ A symbolic inauguration of the age of modernism occurred in 1793 when the “Goddess of Reason” was enthroned in the Cathedral of Notre Dame during the French Revolution, profaning the Cathedral and proclaiming reason as the new “god.” Man was now master of his universe. For many, scientific query, linear thinking, and a belief in the supremacy of man erased the need for a superstitious or spiritual explanation for the workings of the natural world. An unshakeable faith in mankind’s ability, which at times led to arrogance, permeated the era. This ascendant worldview had its influence on theology as well. Revelation’s role as a source of truth was supplanted by reason in some liberal circles.

  In reaction to modernism and its individuality, postmodernism has gradually developed. ⁵ The modern dream has not panned out. Science and reason have not made our lives less complicated, or answered all of life’s questions. The truths of modernism have failed to satisfy, and disillusionment has led to a rejection of truth in general. A simplistic definition of postmodernism would thus be a rejection of all-encompassing truth claims (called metanarratives). To quote one theologian:

The postmodernists reject both the Christian and modernist approaches to the question of truth. According to postmodern theory, truth is not universal, is not objective or absolute, and cannot be determined by a commonly accepted method. Instead, postmodernists argue that truth is socially constructed, plural, and inaccessible to universal reason.

What has been understood and affirmed as truth, argue the postmodernists, is nothing more than a convenient structure of thought intended to oppress the powerless. Truth is not universal, for every culture establishes its own truth. Truth is not objectively real, for all truth is merely constructed–as Rorty stated, truth is made, not found. ⁶

Tagging along with the postmodern dismissal of universal truth is the concept of deconstruction. The dictionary definition of deconstruction is as follows:

A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein). ⁷

  All broad, sweeping claims of truth are viewed with suspicion, and are often considered a means by which the author or those in power exercise control over others. Whether you are referring to a newspaper article, a speech, a religion, a folk tale, a corporate mission statement, or a TV sitcom, they all need to be deconstructed to root out their hidden meaning and agenda. This last statement seems a bit “over the top,” but is a common facet of postmodern thought. Carried to the extreme, deconstructionists “‘argue that all writing is reducible to an arbitrary sequence of linguistic signs or words whose meanings have no relationship to the author’s intention or to the world outside the text.’ NEWSWEEK, 6/22/81.” ^{8 , 9}

  Since, according to postmodernists, communication is considered problematic at best due to the vagaries of human language and the differing world views and cultures of the speaker and the listener, deconstruction is made to appear acceptable. If you can never know the exact meaning of what someone has said, why not deconstruct it and assign it a meaning that works for you and your group! Deconstruction becomes an exercise in political correctness or conformation within the context of your own affinity group.¹⁰

  So how does all of this tie in with the topic at hand, the Emerging Church? First, many of those whom the Emerging Church attracts to one degree or another share a postmodern worldview. But at the same time, the majority of them are not hard-core postmodernists. The average Jane or Joe has never heard of deconstruction. They would likely not say that truth is unknowable, although they may seriously question truth claims, and share other postmodern ideals. Secondly, since Emerging Church leaders are attempting to reach out to “postmoderns,” their approach to the entire Emerging discussion is tailor-made to fit the postmodern worldview. Not just a few of those Emerging Church leaders have been greatly influenced by the same postmodern ideals, both in their practice and in their beliefs. It is in this area of practice and beliefs that the ensuing parts of this article will concentrate, but for now a more thorough description of the Emerging Church will be offered, without critique, often using their own words.

The Emerging Church - What’s Emerging?

  The Emerging Church is a loosely woven fabric of individuals and communities (churches) of all sorts of beliefs, that stretches worldwide.¹¹ The name “Emerging Church” is something of a misnomer, since the “church” is not a denomination or group of individuals with one set doctrine or a common set of beliefs, and there is therefore no one spokesperson for the Emerging Church. Many of them like to call themselves a “conversation,” or a “movement.” Some of those in the conversation are individuals from what I’ll refer to as the “mainline” denominational churches that merely want to use Emerging ideas to “tweak” their worship services or start a satellite church in order to retain and attract younger members. Others are drawn to the more “relational” and “missional” aspects of the Emerging Church as opposed to a doctrinal stance, and may or may not be new Christians. Some are attracted to the “novelty” aspect, as depicted on Nightline (although not all Emerging Churches fit that description). Still others reject the practices and/or theology of the mainline church and are seeking to transform or completely “reimagine” the church. Some of the leaders in the Emerging Church are former pastors from conservative church bodies who have “liberated” themselves from those strictures.

  To a certain extent, the metaphor “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” applies here. The Emerging conversation is so broad and varied that it is difficult to assess how many within the movement are mainline types, how many are hard-core postmodernists, and how many people fall in-between. Unfortunately, it’s usually the more aberrant and sensationalist types of people, places, and events that make the headlines, and that seems to be the case with the Emerging Church as well. While there are conservative Emergents who are out there speaking and writing, such as Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill, the Emergents towards the other end of the spectrum seem to get more of the attention, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. It will therefore necessarily be towards the “liberal” end of the Emerging spectrum that I will concentrate in this article, because that is where heterodox doctrinal issues arise.¹² The squeaky wheel gets the grease. For now though, I’ll present a composite description of what might be considered an “average” postmodern Emerging Church profile.

  The Emerging conversation often revolves around the desire to change the church to make it more holistic, communal, and culturally relevant to a postmodern paradigm:

The emerging church phenomenon is exploring fresh ways to revamp and recontextualize the gospel message to postmodern people.¹³

The emerging church is a quest for a more integrated and whole life of faith. There is a bit of theological questioning going on, focusing more on kingdom theology, the inner life, friendship/community, justice, earth keeping, inclusivity, and inspirational leadership. In addition, the arts are in a renaissance, as are the classical spiritual disciplines. Overall, it is a quest for a holistic spirituality.¹⁴

...offering the things that postmodern people are hungering for: identity, meaning, particularity, belonging, community, spirituality and the good news of salvation!¹⁵

  There is a sentiment that the mainline churches are languishing in the postmodern world:

But we have run out of gas with modern Christianity. I think it’s pretty much done all it can do and said all it can say.¹⁶

Due to its cultural entrenchment, the church no longer relates to the surrounding culture, hence its increasing marginalization and perceived irrelevance.¹⁷

...the mortar-happy church of the last half of the 20^th century is ill-poised to face the promises and perils of the future.¹⁸

  There is a move away from modernism:

We have moved from the modern to the postmodern/emerging; from the linier/absolute to the non-linier/subjective; from science/evidence to spirit/feelings; from intellect/truth to experience/real; from order/dictated to chaos/reality.¹⁹

  And a move away from doctrine:

The eclectic approach of the emerging church is also in sync with the wider culture’s approach to spirituality, which has become divorced from institutional religion and the control of dogma.²⁰

  They emphasize a narrative approach to theology:

The individual stories of each member and the collective story of the faith community are seen in the context of God’s story as it unfolds throughout Scripture. Theology becomes a dynamic, unfolding reflection of God’s dealings with people in the changing circumstances of life.²¹

I am becoming more and more convinced that the missional/incarnational church will not gain any traction unless we learn to read the Bible and the Christian story in a new way. In short, narrative theology has to replace systematic theology as the primary mode of thinking about Christian faith.²²

  “Church” as a Sunday morning event is de-emphasized in favor of a more missional definition of “church”:

They feel they don’t have a context for going to church because they are “being church.”²³

Evangelism is not seen as a program but as a communal living out of the gospel in everyday routines.²⁴

Being "missional" simply means being outward and others-focused, with the goal of expressing and sharing the love of Jesus. The church was not created for itself to remain inward-focused, but actually created to worship God and to spread His love to others. We each were created for a missional purpose. Therefore, we won't have a "missions department" because the whole church itself is a mission. Jesus clearly told the church to "go and make disciples" (Matthew 28:18-20). For us today, this command is not exclusive to overseas missions alone (which we will support wholeheartedly since global missions is extremely important) but is foremost to be lived out in our own communities, families, and day to day lives.²⁵

I no longer believe in evangelism. To be postevangelism is to live our lives in Christ without a strategy but with the compassion and the servant posture of Jesus Christ. We do not do evangelism or have a mission. The Holy Spirit is the evangelist, and the mission belongs to God. What we do is simply live our lives publicly as a community in the way of Jesus Christ, and when people inquire as to why we live this way, we share with them an account of the hope within us.²⁶

  Community is a place for spiritual development:

The standard of success will be based on “Are you in a community?” versus “Are you doing x, y, and z so that you will grow closer to God?” While personal disciplines are important, they grow meaningless apart from a team of spiritual supporters.²⁷

Community: We believe that salvation brings people together as a reflection of a triune God: Father, Son and Spirit. Saved from sin by faith through grace, the people of God are able to live in unity as was intended by God in the beginning.²⁸

I am a part of a community, and I have accepted a view of the world from them.²⁹

“I truly believe that community is where real spiritual formation happens. Most people come to faith not by an isolated effort but through living day by day with people of faith such as their families or friends.”³⁰

  There is an emphasis on being more “genuine,” which means avoiding insincerity or phoniness:

Be Transparent - Be ready to express your humanity and accept your flaws. We are a people who desire to “become” and not live in “one is.” We desire growth and learning, not dogma and doctrine. Transparence means that there are no secretes [sic] in the Postmodern world.³¹

  They seek to be inclusive:

“We are very Christocentric, which means that while we recognize God’s presence in other religions and in people of no faith, we still see Jesus as the most perfect revelation of God and therefore the surest route to God.”³²

They include both Christians and non-Christians in the same groups. This avoidance of differentiation is another common characteristic of emerging churches. They do not want to create “us” and “them” distinctions, which they feel would be both discriminatory and destructive of group participation.³³

  And they are experiential:

we [sic] expect that right-brained expressions will increase (music, poetry, art, drama) as left-brained expressions (apologetics, proposition, reason) learn how to share the stage. The whole person is engaged, and worship becomes multi-sensory: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste are utilized to a greater degree, not to tantalize, but to engage, focus, inspire, communicate and express.³⁴

  While no Emerging Church will necessarily display all of the above characteristics, this gives us a good starting point. In Part 2, we will begin to examine specific beliefs of the Emerging Church. The topic of our discussion will be the Bible, and how some elements of the Emerging Church have “mistreated” Holy Scripture.

Written by Scott Diekmann

All parts of this article may be referenced or downloaded separately or all together at:
http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/index.html.

To jump from the endnote number in the text to the actual endnote and vice versa, click on the respective endnote number.
All quotes containing italics are those of the quoted author unless otherwise noted.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Endnotes

Sola Scriptura     •     Sola Gratia     •     Sola Fide

 

 

 

The Emerging Church, Part 2: The Bible, One Voice Among Many

by Scott Diekmann
SoundWitness.org

  Brian McLaren, the articulate, generally soft-spoken, most widely recognized leader in the Emerging Church states in his book The Church on the Other Side:

“...if we have a new world, we will need a new church. We won’t need a new religion per se, but a new framework for our theology. Not a new Spirit, but a new spirituality. Not a new Christ, but a new Christian.”¹

  Throughout history, when Christians developed a framework for their theology, they started with the Bible. In pre-modern times, and often in modern times, the Bible was viewed as revelation, and theology was based solely on God’s revelation to man as found in the Bible. Because of the influence of modernism, theology has at times been “warped” due to man’s use of rationalism (the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct²) to determine truth. The text of the Bible became subservient to man rather than the other way around.

  With the advent of postmodernism, questions are being asked in the Emerging Church regarding the relationship between the Bible and truth. To understand the Emerging Church’s view(s) of Scripture and its relationship to truth, you must understand their concept of the interplay between community, story, and inspiration.

The Importance of Community in the Emerging Church

  There are two sides to the Emerging Church’s idea of community, one a goal-oriented side, and one a conceptual side.

  Brian McLaren offers us this somewhat utopian ideal of the goal-oriented side of an Emerging community:

But Jesus presents us with a dream (embodied in the group image “kingdom of God”) that is irreducibly communal, familial, and social. It is not just a dream of more and better individual Christians standing like isolated statues in a museum. It is a dream of a community vibrant with life, pulsating with forgiveness, loud with celebration, fruitful in mission.³

Brian’s view of the goal-oriented side of the Emerging community is shared by most in the Emerging Church. There is a large emphasis on community being something more, or other than, a group of believers that shows up for church each Sunday. They promote community, genuineness, and mission, in the sense that they spend less time on church meetings and potlucks and more time living out their faith in the world. Some have taken their message, and their churches, to the streets of the inner city. This is certainly a worthy goal.⁴

Our beliefs are intended to foster a way of life that in turn sends us into the world to serve God and our neighbors, so that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven, and so that God’s kingdom may come.⁵

  The conceptual side of the Emerging Church community emphasizes a communal derivation of truth. As I discussed briefly in Part 1, postmodernists believe that truth is socially constructed. True meaning can only be derived within the context of a group. To quote Gibbs and Bolger from their book Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures,⁶ the book Brian McLaren calls “...by far the best introduction to the whole phenomenon”⁷:

One cannot understand the truths of Christianity as an outside observer. One needs first to experience the embodied truth of the community.⁸

Dr. Bob Wright, quoting from Hauerwas and Willimon, states that Emerging Church advocates:

...believe it is a “mistake to think we can give...arguments to people who are ‘inside’ their own language...We encourage them to ‘come and see’ the truth of our story by ‘trying on’ the Christian way of life–by learning how we, members of the Christian community live, talk, and behave. That is, by becoming an insider in our community, they can learn to see the truth of our faith, even though they never could know its veracity from the outside.”⁹

Gibbs and Bolger comment:

It is not that postmodern people do not want truth per se, but whose truth? Often the one proposing, or more often imposing, “truth” is a person in power. Why trust that person? Instead, a better way to truth, in their view, is to hear the many stories and to discern accordingly, within the context of community.¹⁰

Notice in these quotes that the conceptual aspect of the Emerging community has taken on the identity of the postmodern worldview.

  Complementing the idea of a community-derived truth is the neo-orthodox idea that the Holy Spirit can work without means. This type of thought, propounded by such postmodern Emergent theologians as Stanley Grenz and John Franke, is an unscriptural concept. Separating the Holy Spirit from the Scriptures allows for a culturally established theology, and ultimately, multiple sets of “truth.” To quote John Franke:

A nonfoundationalist approach to theology seeks to respond positively and appropriately to the situatedness of all human thought and therefore to embrace a principled theological pluralism. It also attempts to affirm that the ultimate authority in the church is not a particular source, be it Scripture, tradition, or culture but only the living God. Therefore, if we must speak of “foundations” for the Christian faith and its theological enterprise, then we must speak only of the triune God who is disclosed in polyphonic fashion through Scripture, the church, and even the world, albeit always in accordance with the normative witness to divine self-disclosure contained in Scripture.^{11, 12}

You can’t have it both ways. Either define God based on the world or define God based on Scripture. There is no such thing as Mr. Franke’s “principled theological pluralism.” There is such a thing as a god disclosed only through the world: it’s called idolatry. Franke also speaks of “the voice of the Spirit speaking through culture,” “further light,” “the speaking of the Spirit is not bound up solely with the supposed ‘original intention’ of the author,” and “an open and flexible theology that is in keeping with the local and contextual character of human knowledge while remaining thoroughly and distinctly Christian.” In other words, according to this neo-orthodox view, the Holy Spirit uses not only Scripture, but also the Church and even culture to express different messages to various cultural sub-groups. According to Franke, “such a theology is the product of the reflection of the Christian community in its local expressions.”

  This neo-orthodox view is also reflected in the words of Emerging Church leader Tony Jones:

the beauty of the Spirit controlling the text is that it can, indeed, have different meanings in different times... and that the Spirit can use our own experiences and viewpoints to enlighten us to the meaning of the Word.¹³

Brian McLaren has similar thoughts:

In each case, from the many layers and facets of the Christ-centered gospel, new resources are drawn, and so the message itself changes because the message changes its context, which is to say that the message itself changes by addressing new situations and problems, opportunities in new ways...¹⁴

According to these Emerging Church leaders, the “message” of Jesus Christ can change if the truth of Jesus Christ is received in “polyphonic fashion” from multiple sources. I agree with Franke, we must “speak of ‘foundations’” for the Christian enterprise, but there is only one foundation:

built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20

  The Holy Spirit speaks through no other voice than that of Scripture. As long as, and to the extent that, the Emerging Church relies on a foundation other than the sole foundation of Scripture, theirs will be an unstable house. Truth for them has become “the reflection of the Christian community in its local expressions,” and can only be affirmed within the context of the group, and that truth is often found through “story.”¹⁵

The Importance of Story in the Emerging Church

  To help understand the importance of story, or narrative, in the Emerging Church, I’ll quote Emerging Church enthusiast Ben Sternke:

Christianity is first and foremost a story. It is a history. It is not a set of "timeless truths" or abstract doctrines that we tap into from week to week.¹⁶ It isn't a static system of truth, it's a dynamic story, an unfinished narrative that we live within, and a narrative that we have a part in working out, we help to move the story toward its conclusion.

When Christianity is conceived as merely "timeless truths", the goal becomes "getting to heaven when I die", and then we're left with not much to do until death.... But Christianity isn't primarily about going to Heaven, it's about seeing Heaven come to Earth. Unless Christianity is understood as an unfinished drama, there will be no inherent impetus for mission. But when Christianity is seen as a story, mission makes perfect sense; working out our salvation, learning to love more completely, stewarding the environment, and ridding ourselves of sin are natural out-workings of narrative theology. If we understand Christianity as a story, and read the Bible like the story it is, we realize that the story is going somewhere. And we are part of that story, we have a part to play in moving the story towards its conclusion. ¹⁷

More will be said about the missional aspects of the Emerging Church in Part 6, but for now, Emerging Church leader John O’Keefe will give his “take” on narrative:

The narrative helps define who we are and what we do - it is a core part of our DNA. No matter the story, no matter the ending, truth is in the narrative. All story is valid, all story, both individual and group, can add to the collective of the community. When we see life as simply a collection of story, we start to understand both our humanity and God’s divinity. The narrative allows for creative, adaptable, nonlinear thinking with group input and an interactivity based on transparency and a living worldview.^{18, 19}

Culture is narrative: All culture is narrative in nature, all culture. All culture express’ [sic] itself with words, symbols, and images. When Jesus spoke in parables he did so to express a cultural understanding of the story. He expressed his culture, via the narrative. When we understand that narrative is essential, and creative narratives motivates we can move along in the process.²⁰

So truth for many in the Emerging conversation is found through community within the context of a culturally embedded story. That story is found in the stories of the Bible, interpreted by the reader’s own cultural settings, and the stories of the reader’s own lives. The concept of propositional truth is generally scorned.^{21, 22} “The Bible is not a database of pithy proof texts.”²³ “As we had said before, we cannot simply ‘go to the book’. Truth cannot properly reside as a mere proposition on a page. Truth lives in persons and relationship.”²⁴

  That last quote, “we cannot simply ‘go to the book,” causes many Christians to raise a questioning eyebrow. If community and story determine truth, where does the Bible fit in? It is that question that will be explored next.

The Emerging Church’s View of the Bible as it Relates to God’s Word

  In Brian McLaren’s book The Last Word and the Word After That, through his character Dan Poole, he states “I believe that the Word of God is inerrant....”²⁵ That sounds great - totally in keeping with what Scripture teaches. He then goes on to say in the continuation of the sentence, “...but I do not believe that the Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the bible.” (my emphasis) Continuing two sentences later he says:

“I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view of Scripture: God’s inerrant Word is inherent in the Bible, which makes it an irreplaceable, essential treasure for the church, deserving our wholehearted study and respect...”

I respect my boss. I respect the president. The Bible I revere. It doesn’t contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God. If the Word of God is only inherent in the Bible, where is the list which shows us which part of it is actually the Word of God, and which part I can ignore or throw out? Since God didn’t provide such a list (because all of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God), that means the person making the statement must provide the list, placing herself or himself on God’s throne. That person has usurped God’s authority, making himself God, similar to the crowning of the Goddess of Reason in the Cathedral of Notre Dame which was discussed in Part 1. This type of reasoning leads to comments such as this one by Emerging author Neil Livingstone: “The book is not enough. Authority comes when people who have wisdom and love hold forth the words of the book to the world.”²⁶

  In contrast, an orthodox outlook on Scripture is reflected by these two authors:

Biblical inerrancy and dogmatic authority are the same issue. Does God speak? Can His truth be known? Can His truth be stated in words which are understandable and binding upon the conscience? If not, there can be no gospel at all, for the gospel must be a promise with the authority of God Himself, or it loses its character completely.²⁷

Every theologian should be able to see that we are here confronted with an aut-aut. Either we accept Scripture as God’s own Word and, emphasizing it as the sole source and norm of theology, teach doctrinam divinam, or we deny that Scripture is God’s infallible Word, distinguish in it between truth and error, and teach, in God’s Church, the “visions of our own heart,” the doctrina humana of our Ego. The divine authority which we take away from Scripture we necessarily assign to our own human mind. We are adrift on the sea of subjectivism. Human opinion occupies the rostrum in the Church. Theology is no longer theocentric [focused on God], but has become anthropocentric [focused on man].²⁸

  Rejection of God’s Word as God’s Word is certainly not limited to the Emerging Church, being found in many parts of the mainline church as well, but it is rampant in the “squeaking wheel” portion of the Emerging Church.

  To further fog the Scriptural battlefield, some in the Emerging Church claim that the Bible was written by men only, not by God. Rob Bell, an Emerging Church leader, opines in his book Velvet Elvis: “Now I think the Bible is the most amazing, beautiful, deep, inspired, engaging collection of writings ever.” Often, when theologians have referred to the Bible as “inspired,” they meant that while the apostles and prophets wrote the words down, in their own unique styles, they were guided by the Holy Spirit, so that every word they wrote was exactly as God wanted it. They were writing the words of God – verbal inspiration.²⁹ Rob Bell’s definition of “inspiration,” however, seems to have undergone a “radical” redefinition,³⁰ as illustrated in this interview of Bell and his wife:

...they found themselves increasingly uncomfortable with church. “Life in the church had become so small,” Kristen says. “It had worked for me for a long time. Then it stopped working.”³¹ The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself– “discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. “The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.”

“I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible,” Kristen says, “that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again–like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”³²

  No wonder it’s in color! Their “discovery” has liberated them from the authority of the Bible! Now they can rewrite Scripture and doctrine into whatever color they want – whatever works. The old Adam does cartwheels and handsprings when he hears this kind of pastoral philandering. Human sinful nature, the old Adam, needs to be drowned daily, not to be spoon fed false doctrine.

  Rob’s Scriptural infidelity leads him to make statements such as these:

And the more people insist that they are just taking the Bible for what it says, the more skeptical I get.

Which for me raises one huge question: Is the Bible the best God can do?³³

This [the early church’s determination of the 66 books as the canon of Scripture] is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true.³⁴

  Others in the Emerging conversation also share Rob Bell’s human authorship perspective. Brian McLaren, while claiming the Bible is inspired by God, at the same time says that “...Scripture is something God has ‘let be,’ and so it is at once God’s creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and cultures who produced it.”³⁵

Emergent author Neil Livingstone has this to say:

This, then, is how he [God] has produced the Bible. He works in people’s lives, and then sets them to talking and writing about it. When the people write down their passions, visions, call to holy life, and their interpretations of how God is working in history, and when the believing community around them says “Yes. This is what God is saying to us”, then God is pleased. He is succeeding...

If God had simply dropped a book from heaven into our laps, or used his human creatures as dictation devices, can you see how that would have undermined his whole purpose in speaking to us? But what we see in the Bible is itself an example of the outworking of God’s purposes. It’s done by people in true partnership with the illuminating Spirit of God...

The God of the Bible is so excited about creating a common life with his human creatures that he went much farther than writing a book with them....

So, the God of the Bible is the kind of God who would hand us a book that is written by humans. ³⁶

According to Mr. Livingstone’s view, the Bible is written by men, but they had a “partner” – a little like a “ghost writer.” But it wasn’t a collaborative effort. Mr. Livingstone claims that God produced the Bible through men’s “interpretations of how God is working in history,” a neo-orthodox view. This statement directly contradicts what the Bible says of itself:

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20

Notice also that he says “It’s done by people in true partnership with the illuminating Spirit of God.” There is a big difference between “illumination” and “inspiration.” All Christians receive “illumination” through Christ, who illumines their spiritual darkness.

for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
Ephesians 5:8

to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' Acts 26:18

The prophets and the apostles, or more properly the very words they wrote, on the other hand, were inspired by the Holy Spirit.^{37, 38}

""And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."
Isaiah 59:21

 

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:13

 

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
1 Thessalonians 2:13

 

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16

 

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:21

  I get the distinct feeling that Mr. Livingstone is doing a little postmodern doctrinal remodeling. He has obscured the line of distinction between the prophets and apostles and the rest of us. By his way of thinking, the Scriptures are the equivalent of a Christian’s journal entries describing their spiritual experiences for the month. The Scriptures become an uninspired book.

  To put the ideas of those who share this view of “inspiration” into perspective, I could just as well claim that this article is “inspired” in the same manner and to the same extent as Scripture. Any Christian who writes on Christian topics could make the same claim – which is the way Scripture is viewed in some parts of the Emerging Church.

The Bible - Subject to “Interpretation”

  When God’s Word is viewed as man’s word, the Bible is reduced to one voice among many. Since the Bible is no longer considered by many Emergents to be inspired in the historical orthodox sense, it is viewed more as one of the co-captains of the team. This Emerging viewpoint is reflected by the following quotes from participants in the Emerging conversation:

The biblical story of God is told and contributed to³⁹

...I stand as part of a triangle of interactions. There is my self, my community, and the Bible. All the elements interact with one another in ways that strengthen the fabric of the whole.⁴⁰

The Bible is an “authoritative community member.”⁴¹

All of this undermining of Scripture leads to the inevitable claim that the Bible is difficult to understand and has to be “interpreted”:

...we are handling a New Testament whose letters are out of chronological order and whose books are divided up into chapters and verses. This makes understanding the social-historical context and setting of the New Testament writings virtually impossible to grasp. And it opens the door to such spiritual hazards as isolated proof-texting to “prove” doctrines and theological systems.⁴²

He [Jesus] is giving his followers the authority to make new interpretations of the Bible.⁴³

...the Bible is open-ended.

It has to be interpreted. And if it isn’t interpreted, then it can’t be put into action. So if we are serious about following God, then we have to interpret the Bible. It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says. We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.⁴⁴

Emerging Church leader Spencer Burke completely subverts Scripture:

So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? ...I dont believe it can be used to argue that Christianity is the only true religion. First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words [John 14:6]. Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway.⁴⁵

  The Bible is clear in and of itself - it doesn’t need “interpretation.” No doctrine is in dispute because of a lack of biblical clarity. Conscientious Christians, when stumbling upon a difficult passage, rather than offering up their own “interpretation,” use the prudent method of referring to another passage related to the topic that is easily understood to illuminate the initial passage - Scripture interprets Scripture.

  The Word of God is not a dark, impenetrable book, but a lamp to my feet and a light for my path (Psalm 119:105). The words of Scripture are not inscrutable, rather they give understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130). Paul tells Timothy that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). The Hebrews were admonished for not knowing and understanding the Scriptures (Hebrews 5:11-14). We are able to understand the Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:15).

  Praise God that He has given us a wonderfully clear book that provides us with all that we need to attain forgiveness, life, and salvation, and join the Psalmist in singing:

How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Psalm 119:103

  With the abandonment of Scripture as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, community, story, and biblical “interpretation” have supplanted the clear Word of Scripture. Where the Bible was once the sole source and norm of theology, for some it is now no more than “...the non-fictional story of God’s involvement with people...” and “...the lenses through which we look to better understand our world and our lives.”⁴⁶ The Emerging Church is turning to other avenues to discover God, including experience. It is this topic that will be considered next in The Emerging Church, Part 3: The Experiential Road.

All parts of this article may be referenced or downloaded separately or all together at:
http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/index.html.
The author may be contacted at zanson@msn.com.

To jump from the endnote number in the text to the actual endnote and vice versa, click on the respective endnote number.
All quotes containing italics are those of the quoted author unless otherwise noted.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Endnotes