What are the critiques of the emerging church?
There are many people worried about the EC and there are a number of books and websites that pop-up almost daily to raise concerns about various aspects of the EC. Of particular interest to me are those that are written by Nazarenes (or former Nazarenes) attacking various leaders, pastors, or professors within the denomination that they believe either have emergent leanings or are attempting to make the denomination part of the EC. I keep a close eye on most of the major anti-Emerging websites with Nazarene connections and am very familiar with their concerns. Below I will summarize and address what I believe are the six primary areas of concern that are the focus of many of the critiques. But before I address those concerns let me make two quick clarifying statements:
First, the people I consider to be the most reputable critics of the EC come from outside the Wesleyan tradition and so (often) are critiquing the EC for things that they also critique Wesleyans in general for believing. For example, many of the critics accuse the EC of not treating the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. As I mentioned in a past post, EC writers tend to be post-liberal which means that although they believe the Bible is the inspired by God, they do not hold to an inerrantist view of the Scriptures. It is important to note that Nazarenes have never held to a strict inerrantist view of Scripture. Nazarenes primarily use words like plenary (meaning full) or infallible to describe their view of the Bible’s inspiration. When Nazarenes use the word “inerrant” they use it in this way: “the Scriptures inerrantly reveal the will of God in all things necessary to our salvation.” It is important to note that what Nazarenes believe to be inerrant in the scripture is its revelation of God’s will and purposes for salvation, but that is very different view than holding to an inerrantist view. I know that sounds like a theological technicality, (because it is), but it is a significant technicality because a non-inerrancy view of the Scriptures tends to allow for a more contextualized reading of the Bible. For example, most inerrancy traditions hold to a literalist view of creation and reject the ordination of women into ministry. The Church of the Nazarene has never in its history required a literalist view of creation and it has always ordained women into ministry.
Some of the most visible and reputable critics of the EC are people like John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, Roger Oakland, D.A. Carson, and David Wells. I think it is important for Nazarenes who read or hear their critiques of the EC to recognize that each of these critics are writing from a deeply Reformed (Calvinist) viewpoint and that many of their objections of the EC are often rooted in similar objections those same thinkers have to Wesleyan/Arminian groups like the Methodist and Holiness traditions (of which the Church of the Nazarene is part). I certainly have respect for each of their ministries, but there are places of major disagreement between their theological tradition and the tradition in which the Church of the Nazarene is rooted. I think Nazarenes also will have places of disagreement with certain thinkers in the EC, but some of the EC theology that is criticized by the prominent ministers listed above is at some of the places where Nazarenes and the EC are actually in agreement. Again, I have no personal vendetta against any of the five people I mentioned, but for a Nazarene to say that the EC is bad because of what one of those five thinkers says about it is a little like a Republican taking a Democrat’s advice on politics. It doesn’t mean Nazarenes should ignore their critiques, but it does mean that Nazarenes should be very aware that those five thinkers begin their critique from a very different theological starting point than the Wesleyan/Arminian tradition.
Secondly, in addressing the concerns made about the EC, I’m going to primarily pay attention to folk like those I have already mentioned and I’m going to virtually ignore most of the “concerned” websites out there. I am doing that on purpose because I have to admit that I absolutely cannot stand the tactics I have seen employed by many of the “Concerned Nazarene” anti-emergent bloggers and self-publishers. I have a number of complaints against them, but my primary complaint is the number of time quotes are taken out of context. This is a frequent practice and very frustrating. Let me give you one example of hundreds. In a highly viewed video on YouTube EC critic Eric Barger quotes writer Brian McLaren as stating that, “The challenge today is not whether you are right but whether you are good.” Barger quotes this sentence in a video taped presentation as evidence that the EC is abandoning truth. The actual quote in context can be found on page 61 of McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian. Here is the actual quote in context:
“…Neo plunged right back into our conversation: ‘Dan, when it comes to other religions, the challenge in modernity was to prove that we’re right and they’re wrong. But I think we have a different challenge in postmodernity. The question isn’t so much whether we’re right but whether we’re good. And it strikes me that goodness, not just rightness, is what Jesus said the real issue was – you know, good trees produce good fruit, that sort of thing. If we Christians would take all the energy we put into proving we’re right and others are wrong and invested that energy in pursuing and doing good, somehow I think that more people would believe we are right…. I’m not in any way saying truth isn’t important. But I am saying that truth means more than factual accuracy. It means being in sync with God.’”
Not only does Barger not get the quote correct, but in its full context the quote means almost the exact opposite of what he accuses McLaren of saying. In its proper context McLaren’s comment is fairly innocuous and probably something most Christians would agree with. Unfortunately I see this kind of unfairness to the actual statements of those they are criticizing happen quite frequently. In fact, I believe they regularly participate in slander.
I also greatly struggle with the win-at-all-costs mentality displayed by many. I do think standing up for orthodoxy is critical in the Church but I also think we need to heed at least two scriptural warnings. The first is the blindness the Pharisees had to Jesus that led to the “unpardonable sin” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I take the message of that troublesome text (Luke 12:10) to be that we should always be very careful to call something “not of God” if it indeed may be of God. Second, Ephesus, the first of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 was praised for having strong filters of orthodoxy but it was chastised for losing its “first love.” I think there is a deep relationship between the way the Church carries its filters of orthodoxy and its demonstration of love. I don’t believe that we have to choose between orthodox doctrine and love, but I think some of the tone and destructive tactics that we are witnessing in the Church over these issues does demonstrate that it is all too easy to lose sight of the centrality of loving one another when contesting over doctrine. And if we lose our love, we have ceased to be Christ’s Church.
All that being said, let me list six areas that seem to be the most frequent areas of concern.
1. The EC denies theological certainty.
I mentioned in a previous post that the EC is profoundly shaped and probably should be seen as an attempted response to postmodernity. How one thinks about this issue will likely be the same as one thinks about the issues of modern and postmodern epistemology.
There were many great things about modernity. The quest for foundational certainty led to the greatest advances in science and technology in human history. But the downside of absolute certainty is seen in the imperialism, violence, and cultural genocides of that same period. There are many great things about postmodernity. A more humble view of certainty usually opens the way for dialogue rather than dispute to take place. But the downside of postmodernity is the very real possibility of total relativism.
If that description didn’t make sense to you, think of it this way. Do you think Columbus was a hero or a villain? (This is a gross simplification, but) If you see Columbusas “discovering” the New World and bringing with him the great advances of Western reason, technological superiority, and the Christian faith, then you lean a little toward valuing the certainty of modernity. If on the other hand, you think of Columbus as invading a territory that was already occupied and destroying a valuable (if primitive) culture in its own right and unnecessarily and imperialistically imposing his power and religion on others, then you lean toward a more postmodern view.
There’s no question that the EC is trying to embody the faith in ways that meet folk who think more like postmoderns than like moderns. The question is: can they do that without slipping into complete relativism? The EC response is that they believe they can be humble about truth without being relativists by embodying and witnessing to the truth rather than dictating or coercing others with the truth. The critics of the EC believe they are on a slippery slope to relativism.
One important aspect to this question is the issue of postmodernity itself. Is postmodernity an inevitable reality or is it something we should reject altogether? I think most of the critics think that postmodernity is part of the problem and it should be rejected. Some of the kinder critics agree that the EC should meet postmoderns where they are at, but they should move them towards modern views of Truth and certainty. Most EC thinkers would likely argue that we are in postmodernity whether we like it or not (and most like it) and that we should embrace doing ministry as postmoderns among postmoderns.
2. The EC rejects the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.
I would argue that there has been robust conversation about the substitutionary view of the atonement for centuries. It has not been unusual for theologians historically to struggle with the view that the sole meaning of the cross is appeasing God’s wrath and judgment through the sacrificial death of Jesus. The debate over how to understand the atonement and how to understand the substitutionary atonement in particular has been raging for centuries and has little to do with the rise of the EC even though it is currently getting all the press about it. For example, I have a chapter on the cross and non-violence in a book entitled Violence and Atonement (edited by John Sanders and published by Abingdon) in which all of us who contributed to the book are arguing with various aspects of the substitutionary view of the atonement but not one of us had even heard of the EC at the time. The debate over atonement goes back centuries and is only now getting broad attention because of the way the debate is taking place in the EC and because some of the EC writers have probably done a better job of making the issues surrounding this debate accessible to the average believer.
I think like many non-Reformed or non-Calvinist traditions, the EC does not so much deny the substitutionary theory of the atonement as react against it being the ONLY view of the atonement held by the Church. One would be hard pressed to find any Christian, EC or otherwise, who would not at least confess that when we look at the cross we are reminded that God does not hold our sins against us but extends forgiveness through his Son. What I believe the EC is reacting against is an American evangelical theology that has at times limited the meaning or significance of the cross to its work as sacrifice for sin. To state it crassly, American evangelicalism at times has seemed to say, “Believe that Jesus died for your sins, and if you get around to living as a disciple of Jesus that would be good. But the important thing is that you cognitively believe that Jesus died for your sins.” I believe at the core, this is the view that the EC is reacting against. The idea that to “believe” means that we become committed disciples of Jesus and citizens of his kingdom is central to the reaction of the EC.
To expand the understanding of the cross is not a new idea. In fact, one could argue that there are many ways of understanding the significance of the cross found in the bible. Historically, at least two or three other theories of atonement have been very important. The early Church Fathers (from the second through fourth centuries) often held to what scholars refer to as a “Christus Victor” view of the cross. This view says that in the cross Jesus defeated death, evil, and violence. This view actually emphasizes the resurrection as well as the crucifixion. One of the weaknesses of holding only to a substitutionary view of the atonement is that logically the resurrection isn’t necessary because what was important for atonement was Christ’s death. The resurrection, however, celebrates God’s victory over death by conquering it with life, evil by conquering it with love, and violence by conquering it with peace.
Another important historical figure, Peter Abelard, argued for the “Moral Influence” of the cross. In the cross, argues Abelard, we see the pattern of self-giving love that is a requirement for all disciples. Jesus called his followers to “take up their cross and follow him.” It makes no sense for the disciple’s cross to be thought of as also a cross of substitutionary sacrifice. The disciple’s cross must therefore be the commitment on the part of the believer to participate in Christ’s redeeming of the world through love rather than coercion.
Because these other aspects of the cross have often been overlooked by American evangelicals I do think that some in the EC have tried to make corrections through over-statements. If there are any who deny that when we look at the cross we see merciful and justifying grace of God in the sacrificial death of Christ, then I will agree that they have gone out-of-bounds. I have yet to read any who say that. I have read many who want to expand what is meant when we speak of atonement, but I have not read any personally who deny the cross as God’s consummate act of forgiveness.
A good example of how this point is often misconstrued by critics is the frequent quoting of Brian McLaren as saying, “The cross isn’t the center, it is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.” What the critics inevitably fail to either quote or understand is that this statement is made in the midst of a conversation about how God will establish his kingdom. Brian – like many Christians including Anabaptists and Mennonites – believes that the cross means that God will establish his kingdom in peace rather than in violence. God did not, Brian argues, overcome evil with good at the cross as a temporary plan. Rather, (it may be beyond our imagination to conceive) but God is going to establish his kingdom in peace in the end also. So Brian’s statement regarding the cross is made in the context of: “If God is NOT going to establish his kingdom in peace, but like every other king in history, can only bring about his kingdom through inflicting violence and torture upon his enemies… THEN the cross isn’t the center, it is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.”
That “THEN” makes all the difference, but it is almost universally left out by those who critique the EC for denying the atonement. The irony is that – at least in Brian’s case – he believes MORE about the cross than his critics do. He believes that the cross of Jesus is God’s instrument of forgiveness but he also believes it is God’s victory over evil and the disciple’s pattern for life. Far from denying the atonement he actually expands the meaning of Christ’s atoning cross.
If you want to read a good example of the way some in the EC expand the conception of atonement, I would recommend A Community Called Atonement, by Scot McKnight.
3. The EC emphasis on conversation, community, and peace abandons the proposition that Jesus is the unique way to heaven.
This is also a by-product of the postmodernity of the culture to which the EC responds. Members of the EC often work for conversation and collaboration between other faith traditions. This tends to be out of the assumption that not everything about other faith traditions are completely wrong but that there are some common areas of agreement that allow people of various faiths to work together.
There are two things that are typical of the EC that create tension on this issue. The first is that the EC doesn’t focus a whole lot on the question of heaven. I believe this again is a reaction to American evangelicalism that has often focused exclusively on the question of heaven and hell without working to transform the world. It is a stereotype, but it has often been the case that evangelicalism has been “heavenly minded, but no earthly good.” I do believe the EC wants to push the church to be “earthly good.” Because of that, the EC has tended to leave questions of eternal judgment to God while working for the transformation of the world. I think there are some cases of over-statement here among EC thinkers. I believe it is very important for us to continue to raise questions regarding the assurance of eternal life through Jesus, but as a child of American evangelicalism, I am sympathetic to the desire for people to “know we are Christians by our love.”
The second thing that is typical of the EC on this point that creates tension is that they tend to be reacting against dispensational premillennialism. If you are unfamiliar with that theology, dispensationalism is the view of Christ’s return made most popular in the Left Behind book series. There has been debate for at least a century between dispensationalism, post-millennialism, and amillennial views of eschatology, but I believe most EC leaders lean toward the more optimistic views represented in “post” or “a” millennial positions. In short, this means that they tend to be more hopeful about what God may do through his people to create places of love and justice than most dispensationalists. Often dispensationalists hear conversations promoting peace and justice across boundaries of religions as potentially leading to one world religion and the advent of the Anti-Christ. While folk on the other side interpret these conversations as signs of God’s Spirit moving among all people uniting those that have for so long been divided.
I do think that there are concerns to be raised on the EC side that any time social aspects of the gospel are emphasized that a kind of hope rooted in humanism can be a danger. But on the other hand I think dispensationalism often suffers from “conspiracy-itis.” When one is convinced that history will get better then one can fall for false schemes rooted in humanism rather than in Christ. But when one is convinced that history will only get worse then one is taking the risk of missing out on genuine movements of God because every popular moment that comes along is potentially a moment of evil and deception.
4. The EC denies the existence of hell and is universalistic.
I do believe that many EC thinkers want to move the Church away from Dante’s vision of hell that has captured the imaginations of people both inside and outside the Church for centuries. I get a little frustrated with critics who will say things like, “The EC denies the biblical view of hell.” My frustration is that (a) the critics assume that their view of hell is the THE biblical view; and (b) that the EC thinkers writing about hell and judgment are saying, “I don’t care what the bible says about it… There is no hell.” It has been my experience that many Christian’s view of hell and divine judgment is shaped more by Dante than by the Scripture. And it has also been my experience in reading EC folk that they are trying to make a biblical argument for why their view of judgment is THE biblical view.
I am also surprised at the way some critics act like this is a totally new question that has never been raised before. For example, most of what I read from EC folk regarding their view of hell is almost identical (in fact most admit that they are borrowing their view from) C.S. Lewis’ view of hell as articulated in his well-known book The Great Divorce. Most are trying to balance divine love and divine justice without saying (like a Dispensationalist would say), this is currently a period or dispensation of God’s grace, but next is coming the period or dispensation of God’s justice. This is not simply an EC issue. Theologians of every bent are trying to interpret the bible and hold in tension what it means for the Lion of Judah to eternally be the Lamb of God. I think it is unfair to the EC to say that they reject the “biblical view of hell.” One can disagree with their interpretation of the bible, but the critic has to recognize that they too carry one interpretation of the bible.
I have noticed that even some critics have begun to realize that their claim that the EC is “universalistic” (meaning that everyone will end up in heaven) is wrong. Again, much like Lewis’ Great Divorce, there are many theologians throughout Church history who have argued that “God will be all in all” and that he will not stop working until everything that can be redeemed will be redeemed. I have seen many names given to this view, but the essential view is not that everyone will be saved but that God will continue working until all that wills to be saved will be redeemed. There are biblical arguments theologians (the foremost example being Jurgen Moltmann) make for this view. So again, critics can criticize the interpretation of the Scripture of those who hold some kind of “universal redemption” view, but it is wrong to say it is “unbiblical.”
Personally, I don’t see the need to create division in the Church over this issue. I think people on both sides see the danger of a general universalism. But none of us knows if God is going to draw a line in the sand historically and say, that is it, you are done, or if he will continue working until “every knee bows and every tongue confesses…” I remember hearing a student ask Jurgen Moltmann one time if he was a universalist. He responded, “Oh no! I am not a universalist! There are many people I hope go to hell. I’m just not sure Jesus feels the same way about them.” I can make the biblical argument for why they will end up in hell and I can make a biblical argument for why God will work until all is redeemed. I really don’t know which will be the case. I know that I want people to live now with the assurance of eternal life. And although I don’t know if Moltmann is correct in his biblical argument, I kind of hope that folk like him are right about God’s redemptive work. But even if he is wrong, I simply can’t see why this needs to be a place of division between believers.
5. The EC is opening the door to contemplative spirituality and the New Age.
This is another area where I think both sides need to be cautious. I think the EC needs to be cautious about certain spiritual practices that get co-opted into the faith that have their origins in other religious traditions. But I think the critics need to be really careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems that any use of the term Spiritual Formation is being thrown under the bus by the anti-emerging critics. I also think the critics are practicing a great deal of unfair and unnecessary anti-Catholicism in some of their objections.
There is a tendency among critics to say (again) that the spiritual practices among the EC are unbiblical. I think we need to be careful here, especially Wesleyan folk. Wesleyans have held that “tradition” is part of the quadrilateral of sources for truth. That means that we don’t reject everything that comes to us through Christian tradition just because it is not specifically mentioned in the bible. Most of the critics are genuinely naïve to the number of non-biblical traditions that all Christians practice and with just cause because they are practices handed to us through the development of Christian tradition.
I am willing to share in some of the criticism of some contemplative practices that a few folk in the EC church (and other parts of the Christian Church) practice. But I refuse to participate in what feels like Catholic bashing on the part of some critics.
There is a seven part EC series coming out from Thomas Nelson on spiritual disciplines. The topics of the seven books are: prayer, Sabbath keeping, fasting, the sacred meal (Eucharist or communion), the pilgrimage (discipleship), the liturgical year, and tithing. I fail to see the danger in Christians practicing any of those seven disciplines.
I believe there is a deep need on the part of young people who are being raised without familial or community roots and have been raised in “what’s happening now” Christianity to connect with the historical church. The spiritual disciplines of the Christian tradition are one important way that we reconnect. As the Church goes through the process of reconnecting with is past we are going to have to have conversations about what practices are beneficial and which are not, but I find the criticism of the whole idea of Spiritual Formation by many of the critics I read as overblown. I especially find the labeling of people like Richard Foster and Dallas Willard (two deeply devoted Christians who have done great work in connecting Christians to the history of Christianity) as part of the EC ridiculous. I also think the term “New Age” is thrown around as a label by many critics as just a dirty label to put on somebody, but it rarely if ever has any connection to the actual New Age movement. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Bishop Camara of Brazil. He writes, “When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint; when I asked why there were so many poor, they called me a communist.” When you don’t like someone’s politics, just call them a communist or a socialist. When you don’t like their spirituality, just call them New Age.
I do think there are legitimate disciplines of concern here. But again, I don’t understand the need for division over this point. I have just as many differences of opinion over spiritual practices with the Charismatic movement as I do with the EC, but I certainly still think of them as brothers and sisters in Christ and I’m certainly not going to label them New Age or heretical.
6. The EC is not new, it’s just cooler, hipper, and disconnected
My EC friends won’t like me here, but I sort of agree with this critique at some levels. I think there are many folk who have jumped on the EC bandwagon who are simply trying to pick worship styles and themes that look cool or feel spiritual without considering the theological implications of those practices. I do think there are some EC groups who are trying to do very creative and intentional things in worship with theological forethought, but some of the gatherings I know of under the EC banner are simply gatherings of bored and discontent Christian young people.
One of the presuppositions for some in the EC is that everyone is spiritual but not religious. That is an idea that may need to be explored more. I think I understand why that dichotomy is often talked about, but I am a little wary of meeting spiritual people with the gospel if that gospel doesn’t then get embodied in very ethical (and material) ways. As my friend Michael wrote and reminded me, we often work hard at making the Church accessible to spiritual but un-churched people without first asking, “Do we want to be accessible or be the Church?” Michael reminded me that part of being the true Church will mean that some people won’t want to join. Michael’s question also overstates the case a bit, but there is some truth to that overstatement. Like all movements trying to reach those outside the Body of Christ, the EC has to find that balance between what we might call “relevance” and “faithfulness” (even though the two are not always mutually exclusive).
I’m also a little weary of criticizing “the religious.” Which leads me to my other critique; the desire to be spiritual but not religious is often an attempt to move away from institutional forms of Christianity. If I have one major concern about the EC it is its lack of connection. I don’t think the EC intended (and probably still doesn’t intend) to become a “church.” It was meant to be a conversation among likeminded Christians across churches. But somehow, wheter intentionally and unintentionally, the EC has become a “thing.” And it is largely a “thing” that is unconnected from some other “thing,” which means it currently has little accountability. I am concerned that many EC leaders have either no specific Church connection or are leaders of independent congregations. I understand why that is the case (the same thing happened to Luther) but I confess that I prefer those forms and folks in the EC who are staying in their particular denominations and battling it out. The only accountability some in the EC have is whatever their publisher will let them get away with. I think that is problematic.
That is not all their fault. We live in a strange time historically when Christianity is divided into denominations but Christians are increasingly becoming anti-denominational. That raises serious issues of ecclesiology and accountability for both the EC and its critics. For example, who can hold EC leaders accountable not only for what they are teaching but also for the direction they lead congregations? Likewise, who holds the critics of the EC accountable for the often despicable and dishonest methods that they are using against other believers? In other words, nearly all American evangelicals have inherited a lousy ecclesiology, (that’s not necessary any of our faults). But it remains to be seen if the EC will be part of the solution and not just a continuation and furtherance of the problem.
I apologize for the long post. But these are important critiques to address. In the next section I will write about some of the things the EC is saying that I think the Church needs to hear. But for now, if you are interested in reading more about some of the critiques and defenses of the EC let me recommend the following resources.
If you want to read a critique of the EC, the one that I found interesting and the most fair is: Why We’re Not Emergent by Two Guys Who Should Be, by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck.
If you want to read something short from Brian McLaren defending and describing the EC in his own words, I recommend the interview at the following link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week846/interview.html
