Why James MacDonald Is Not Emerging (Part 1)

Hi Pastor James!
I actually read the original article you wrote, just a couple months ago (as well as Scot McKnight's charitable critique & the ensuing dialogue on his blog). As someone who considers himself in many regards "emerging", I actually agree with your critiques, where they intersect reality. Scot's main critique of your article (which I believe stands) was that you overgeneralized the movement. [BTW, I take it you don't anticipate real dialogue here considering the allotted space.]

Matt:
Nice to be talking to you again. I was given a small word count in the assignment from CT, and asked to give my personal perspective, not a rigorous, broad ranging, or objective thorough analysis. I did that the best I could. Being kind and affirming of what is good. I think the dangers and concerns about the leaders have only grown in the past two years.

james

Concerning the divisions which appear to be happening between emerging/non-emerging Christians, I believe its important to consider Thomas Campbell's statement: "The church of Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one: consisting of all those in every place that profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct..." Yes, this includes Catholics, Episcopals, and Emergers.

Hey Pastor James
Man your ministry is sooo powerful God Blessed! You’ve really challenged me in different areas of life and your booklet on preaching Has really helped me as well!

Thanks

Hey... Actually I was referring to the allotted space here for comments. :) I get fed up with many of the prominent leaders connected with Emergent, and with some streams of the EC. But Andrew Jones (a prominent, solid, conservative voice in the EC) pointed out recently that a lot of orthodox pastors/thinkers/churches are deep in the movement (even many S. Baptists). I try to ignore the theological nonsense and glean from the missiological and ecclesiological perspectives that are so key.

We all stand before GOD one day and man opinions and ideals will not accompany the creation standing before the Creator GOD. Now there is a truth that can not be alter. God is!!!!!!!!!!!

I am happy to hear what you have said about the emerging church. I was at Harvest London and enjoyed the service. I really did feel touched that sunday morning. Praise be to God!! God Bless you and your family from my heart to yours
Adam

James,

Why you would say the quote by Campell is unbiblical...he said "profess faith in Christ AND obedience to him in all things" and says, also, "manifests the same in temper and conduct". How is this not biblical?

I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT; I READ IT WRONG SORRY ! :(

McKnight DID interact with the content of your objections - I am not sure you have been listening/reading to the voices of the emerging church in relation to "unchurchy, relevant, or doctrinal compromise" - it may surprise you. Please don't confuse emerging with emergent .

I THINK MY OBJECTIONS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I HAVE READ QUITE A BIT. THE WHOLE THING IS OVERBLOWN IN MY MIND. SORT OF A WHITE SUBARBAN INTELLECTUAL DEBATE BETWEEN CRANKY CHURCH KIDS WHO DO MORE DEBATING OF FORMS THAN FRUIT-BEARING. TIME WILL TELL :) I KNOW THAT CARICATURE IS OVERSTATED GOD KNOWS> :)

james

James,

I didn't mean to imply that you haven't read any authors of emerging thought. But rather, which ones. People like McKnight, Kimball, McKinley, Seay, Burke, Driscoll, Lake (deceased), Andrew Jones, etc. are very much committed to doctrinal truth, bringing back the rich history of our faith (through liturgy, prayers, etc.) and are also concerned that the emerging movement doesn't just become about style and nothing more. I don't know - maybe you were reading more fringe authors?

btw, when i said "fringe authors" i meant those who may be at the edge or radical edge of ideas and thoughts within emergent - some of these guys are at the nucleus of emergent but "some" of their thoughts/ideas are fringe. Many within the emerging church have become uncomfortable with some of what is being expressed. Some of it is shock value statements to get people to actually think about things.

James, I think a lot of your critique of the emerging church is right on. However, there are many Christians who share a different view of inspiration than mainline evangelicals. I believe one can share a different view and yet be obedient to Christ (love God and love your neighbor as yourself), I wish it could be as Campbell said, that "the church is one"-that this could be so, and that divisions on the basis of what the inspiration of the text looks like, could be washed away...
Jn17:17

Dear James I am not sure if I understand whats going on fully or not, but to me it sounds as if the churches are trying to change to satisfy the times (tickle peoples ears). If this is it and your stand is to not follow along on this path, GOD BLESS YOU! We are to change the church because its the 2000 God has commanded us in one way and one way only! If you choose the change you have fallen off of GODS path! James the words that God has given you to say have pulled me out of satin's fire thnk u

Hey Malissa,

Actually, the emerging church is reacting against ear tickling, American consumeristic, petty nonsense that has been sold to us by the church growth movement. They are trying to stimulate fresh thinking about the history of church and theology and mission, and get people engaged with the church who have been marginalized. Some of them have become all out heretics. Others, far from it. Most of the good folks are simply labeling themselves 'missional' now.

Well said Matt:
James

Matt - I agree completely with everything you have said except for your last line. I think 'missional' has become a significant piece of the emerging church, but just labeling oneself 'missional' doesn't mean you are 'emerging'. The 'emerging church' has other aspects to it that also define it.

Hey Tom! I would also agree that being "emerging" means more than being missional, but intended to communicate that "conservative emergents" are simply calling themselves "missional" so as to avoid backlash from their larger faith communities to the connotations of the emerging label. It's all about identification and avoiding misrepresentation. If I were to define "emerging" concisely but accurately, I would call it missional, incarnational/communal, countercultural.

You know, I've changed my mind. I like the short comment limit. It prevents lengthy comments from stifling discussion and encourages a greater number of comments and commenters. How sweetly ironic!

Matt, I agree!!! :) I do feel bad that I've taken up like 3 slots on this one though> :)
I'm def. not too knowledgeable on the emergent church, but I do know that there are a significant amount of people who think they can live out their Christianity WITHOUT THE CHURCH. I think this approach is wrong, and if emerging church services are bringing back liturgical practices and worship styles that resonate with these people and bring them back into fellowship, than I'm all for it.

However, maintaining orthodox teachings of the church is important. As authors in the protestant traditions often function as "bishops," it is important that certain writings are monitored and challenged (as James has done) when things don't seem right. James-PROPS -although, you may need to write a book on this one!! :)

-my two sense... :)

Fred, right on. I read Barna's book Revolution and was broken hearted... sickened. All the EC nonsense about church being all egalitarian is sad and dangerous. Incarnational doesn't have to assume a lack of biblical leadership, and it must not. My heart for the church is (a) faithfully proclaim the gospel, (b) embody the gospel holistically as individuals, families, and communities of faith, and (c) advance the Kingdom through perpetual Christ-centered mission, to the glory of God.

Matt - you are so right! If we can find integirty, honesty and the Word of God as central in our leadership, worship will follow in many forms but it will be Christ-centered. Back to the WORD!

Thanks Matt, I'll check out that book. One thing that bothers me...I'm not so sure that a spirit filled life as a Christian today (in a modern church) looks so different than it did in the early church. (???) People were attentive to the "rule of faith," people were spirit filled, they sought to do the will of God, and they were witnesses to the good news of Jesus as Messiah. I'm troubled with the accusation that we are just "modern" Christians. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I am 28! :)

James,
I was glad to read again your articles on the Emerging Church. So glad you have not changed your stand as so many have. Our church as been seeker friendly, purpose driven and now emerging. Very confusing. A few good books I've read are "The Truth War" by MacArthur, "Faith Undone" by Roger Oakland, and "This little Church Stayed Home" by Gary Gilley. The best is of course still God's Word. Thanks for your strong stand!

Fred,
Our lives certainly ought not be different, but unfortunately, in many ways, they are. It was obvious that the early disciples of Jesus took his and the apostles' words seriously when they said that we must suffer for His sake, love one another as Christ loved us, denounce allegiance to Mammon, and walk by faith (as James just taught) instead of sight. If I had the space (just go read my blog) I would show how "modern" Christianity has failed in all these.

Matthew, a question...you criticize the modern church for falling short. Can you show me another time when the church has totally succeeded and not fallen short? The Pauline letters (the earliest writings in the Bible) show rough edges in the earliest churches. The perfect church will exist when Jesus comes back...and until then we are to strive as best we can to live as Christians. The Church as it is today is not perfect, but it still is the holy bride of Christ following Jesus.

You bet the Church has always had its issues. Heck, God's people have, from the beginning, been faithless despite God's perfect faithfulness. But we have to learn two things from Scripture: 1) what the earliest disciples and churches did right so as to follow the example of their faith (Heb 13:7), & 2) what they did wrong, as evidenced by the NT writers' admonitions and rebukes. In the spirit of Semper Reformanda, we must constantly match how we live personally & corporately w/ God's Word.

All that to say, there's a difference between railing on God's bride, The Church, and calling her to greater holiness in light of God's Word. Critiques of particular unbiblical manifestations of 'Christianity' are not slams on God's bride, but acts of love toward her. Not that you implied this, but we simply cannot justify sin under the banner of imperfection (Rom 6:1-2). We do each bear responsibility not only for ourselves but the community of faith.

It seems that the real question here is not over the emergent being biblical/unbiblical, but what we must have in common to have fellowship with another Christian. What "creed" must we have between us to say that "You are my brother/sister in Christ?" The question is where do we draw the line in regards to Christian fellowship? (with Catholic? Lutheran? Nestorian? Emergent? Christians) The question is, does the Evangelical church have the monopoly on the true biblical church?

Well, in so far as this blog post--and much of the broader critiques--is concerned the pressing issue really is whether certain emerging trends are biblical. And I believe the conversation is worth having... not taking for granted that American history encapsulates the ideal vision of who and what the Church should be in all places and times.

Matt:
I agree, and my article acknowleges at many point, repeatedly, that the critiques have merit and that the Western Church is lacking in many many ways. Sadly though the intellectual rigor of most people in blog world cannot rationally even dialogue about critique but runs instead to a sophmorish defensiveness and counter attack. I stand by what I wrote. What is good in the emerging church from my limited vantage point, what is surfacy and not good or bad, and what is in fact dangerous and unbiblical. I said what I said. ha ha. Looking forward to lunch, I really believe I can learn alot from you. :)

james

Hey, James!

I guess my question is: What churches are you basing your "emerging church" views on? I'm an African-American leading a multiracial church plant... went to Washington Bible College... and I don't fit really in the "emerging" camp, as it's been defined by many. Yet I definitely don't fit into the dry, Bible Church mentality I grew up with.

I don't have many characters left (haha), but I'd really like to dialogue with you. Could we dialogue via email?

Matt...re: your Feb.2nd blog, I'm about halfway through the same book, Barna's "Revolution" and am so wigged out by it that I put it down a few weeks ago & don't know when I'll pick it up again. I am concerned that the "emerging" church & Barna's Revolutionaries are elevating the parachurches above the local church, something I've heard Pastor James preach against (WTG James!). Many N. American churches need re-focusing, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Glory to God always.

A Missional church just popped up down the street from us. I have no idea what this is. What does a Missional church consist of?