Many people know that in my previous ministry in Santa Cruz, California that I had the opportunity to pastor with two well-known and respected men in the evangelical world. The one, Chip Ingram, was gaining widespread influence through his growing radio ministry, and the other, Dan Kimball, through his writing and networking with emerging church ministry pioneers. Both men led large, progressive congregations on the same church campus yet with widely disparate styles, philosophies and ministry demographics. The morning services under Chip’s leadership were full of young families and urban professionals while the evening services under Dan’s guidance were full of college students and mostly hip single young adults. And I? I had the unique responsibility of ministering alongside both of them with one foot anchored in modern ministry and the other in postmodern.
During my tenure at that church, I found it initially challenging to be ministerially ambidextrous with one hand in traditional ministry and the other in an “emerging church” ministry but I gained a level of insight and experience through that time that I think perhaps uniquely qualifies me to address the increasingly controversial issue of the emerging church.
First of all, let me say that I find that many who critique the emerging model often draw their conclusions and make their evaluations either based on hearsay knowledge or from some pages in a book they read or an article they downloaded. Very few, if any, critics to my knowledge have had any personal experience or extended interaction and observation on which to base their criticisms, which I believe actually undermines their credibility in speaking to this issue. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to share my own perspective based on personal experience, interaction and observation which I have gained through having ministered as a pastor in both traditional and emerging contexts. And, the reason that I want to share my view on this issue is to set the record straight where there is misunderstanding and misplaced blame regarding the brooding controversy that has developed and spread in the last few years.
To be honest, when I arrived in Santa Cruz for my first ministry assignment after graduating from seminary and being ordained in 2001, I was quite frankly overwhelmed by the disparity of the style and philosophy between the traditional ministry that occurred on Sunday mornings and the very non-traditional ministry that happened on Sunday nights. Sunday mornings actually seemed very familiar to me as it included the typical contemporary worship, perfunctory announcements, and dynamic teaching. Everyone dressed casually and looked normal much like the church I had come from in Scottsdale. The Sunday nights, however, were shockingly different. Yes, there was worship, but lots more of it and the music was louder, longer and better than I had ever experienced. There were hundreds of college and post-college aged people that filled the place and most of them sported tattoos, earings, euro-fashion clothes and funky hairstyles. The room was set up very differently, with tables mixed in with the chairs, as well as icons and candles spread around the room, and the teaching was more relational than inspirational. There was a pervading tone in the room that was more open, curious and apologetic and there were sacred spaces set aside for prayer and solitude, and it all took place in a darkened environment that felt more spiritual and mysterious than what I was used to. All this is to say that I was taken aback at first by the stark differences I observed and it actually took me some time to not just understand what was taking place but also to appreciate it.
In time, I naturally grew accustomed to the stylistic differences between the two congregations and adapted to ministering comfortably in both of them. What I learned in the process is that though the philosophies and styles of mornings and evenings were substantially different, their commitment to quality and substance was not. What I observed during my time there was that both men I served with were equally committed to upholding orthodox truth, only communicating it in very different ways. And, they both did it effectively.
Now, during my time in Santa Cruz, the pastor of the evening gathering was interacting with a network of pioneering young pastors around the country and starting to speak at conferences with them about this new creative approach to ministry they called “The Emerging Church”. And, I had the opportunity to participate in some of those interactions and see for myself first hand what other young pastors were saying and doing about reaching out more effectively to our postmodern culture. And, what I surfaced out of those early dialogues and conferences were certain values that included, among others, a commitment to fostering dialogue with the surrounding culture, a desire to re-evaluate common church practices and traditions, an openness to consider different philosophical and/or theological viewpoints or persuasions, and a passion for the inclusion of arts, music and culture into worship.
Now, I recall during that time period appreciating the kinds of questions that were being asked and agreed with most of the values that were being established. However, there were some in those conversations who felt compelled to go further and question more than just styles and philosophies choosing to challenge some long established orthodox theological and biblical doctrine regarding such issues as the exclusivity of the gospel, the nature of the atonement of Christ, the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the moral and ethical commands pertaining to sexuality. Ultimately because of this compromise on the part of a few involved, the movement fractured into two, one larger conservative segment that was committed to upholding doctrine and the other smaller one challenging it. What in turn developed is a conservative stream committed to biblical and theological truth and the other a liberal stream of the movement seemingly bent toward pluralism and existentialism.
What occurred in the emerging/emergent dialogue in the last several years is really no different than what has probably occurred in every generational movement that tries to “do church differently” for their own time. The liberal segment splinters off and joins mainline denominations while the conservative segment stays and occupies its rightful place within mainstream evangelical denominations. In time, for the conservative segment, the coined verbiage for their movement will fade and though they will have their own methods and styles of ministry in their ministry context, they will be the ones to carry on the orthodox truths complete and intact for the next generation. And, the truth is that there are many young pastors and leaders associated with this movement who are absolutely committed to doing this for theirs.
Now, all of this is to say that there have been many unfair and unkind sweeping generalizations made against this entire movement by a small but vocal group of people hurling false accusations against any leader or pastor who makes any stylistic or philosophical changes in their churches or ministries that reflect “emerging” values. It apparently does not matter to them that those values are merely stylistic or philosophical in nature and not biblical or theological; they dismiss anything that even looks different to them as harmful and heretical simply because of an illegitimate fear that has been instilled into them by overt watch-dog organizations and groups that bill themselves as “discernment ministries”. These so-called “discernment” groups are often just one person who has a bone to pick with just about everyone who does things differently, and even if their intentions were originally right in trying to protect the church from liberal influence, their tactics end up stoking illegitimate fears among God’s people and tarnishing the reputations of many faithful leaders. Although some of their criticism may be warranted for a small contingent of outspoken emergents, most of it unfortunately is levied categorically against the entire movement and ends up hurting the good guys too.
Their sweeping over-generalizations and stereotypical labels, though perhaps primarily directed at the liberal segment of the movement, have been used to attack any pastor or leader who dares to suggest fostering constructive dialogue with the surrounding culture, who questions common antiquated church traditions or customs, who is willing to even consider and at least interact with different theological viewpoints and persuasions, or who desires to incorporate the arts into life and worship.
Unfortunately, these so-called “discernment ministries” often want to plant seeds of doubt and fear into people’s minds about their own church whenever they see any stylistic changes happening by implying that those changes are an indication that their church may well be going down “a slippery slope” toward some mystical heresy. Now, this kind of alarmist mentality only serves to turn well intentioned people into paranoid watchdogs who look under every rock and around every corner for evidence of “the slide”. And, to their discredit, along with those who may deserve it, they also defame many upstanding organizations, schools, ministries, churches, pastors, authors, and leaders simply because of their supposed associations or connections. This is, in my estimation, harmful and not helpful for the Church today as it not only harms reputations but also hamstrings ministry by plaguing any efforts to be innovative and creative in designing effective ministry.
My plea to the church is that people, especially the “discerning” ones, do their homework and check the reliability and credibility of their sources before drawing premature or inaccurate conclusions about movements, ministries or leaders and think carefully and wisely before openly slandering God’s anointed. Now, if there is clear and substantive evidence of biblical or theological perversion, then it would be appropriate to lovingly call that person into account, but if there isn’t, then there is the risk of sinning not just against God’s servants but also against His redemptive mission in the world.
If I sound serious about this, it’s because I am and have been meaning to write on this for some time. The truth is that I am quite tired of and sufficiently annoyed by the ridiculous assumptions and accusations levied against faithful godly leaders by so called “discerning” Christians who quite honestly by their words and their behavior prove that they do not know what they are talking about. They neither attempt to know or even care to find out if what they are hearing or presuming is true or not. I am actually quite disturbed that supposed Christians would so callously and arrogantly attempt to defame the name and tarnish the reputation of their leaders so easily and think that they will not be held accountable for their words.
For the record, I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with Emergent Village and the church that I pastor is not on a “slippery slope” toward anything but hopefully Christlikeness and glory. Any church that I pastor will by nature be creative and innovative in its approach because I believe that styles and approaches can and should change as needed in order to sufficiently engage and redeem our culture. I believe that the message of the gospel is unchanging but that the way in which it is presented is not. And, if there are people who doubt my fidelity and integrity to biblical truth simply because of my practical ingenuity in delivering it, then it ought to be obvious that they lack the gift that they think they possess.. they lack discernment.
