Issue: The ‘Emergent Church’ – a rather amorphous entity, by design, has become the favorite ‘they’ to watchblogs like Slice/CRN. A current and recent thread in this larger discussion regards them ECM and homosexuality.

CRN’s Take: One of the current threads of criticism is that the Emergent Church tolerates homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, if practiced in a monogymous relationship. This is portrayed not as an issue with a specific church or churches, but as endemic of the entire movement.

My Take: Engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. Period. I’ve said so before in response to an article on Emergent ‘TheOoze’.

The ECM is not a neat little movement that can be pigeonholed, though, and Slice/CRN tends to take anything sinful or that they don’t like (which are often mistakenly equated to be the same thing) and say that it is part of the ‘emergent church’ – that nebulous ‘they’ out there. (This site has been attacked specifically by Ingrid as ‘emergent’, and has still not issued a correction, when given the facts.) Rob Bell is often lumped in with the ECM by Slice/CRN, though he disavows any association, and his church, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI, doesn’t really fit the mold (it is a megachurch that is focused on practicing Christianity as taught by Jesus within a first-century (as opposed to a post-modern) context.

In reality, the ECM is a response to post-modernism across many denominations, in seeking a way to engage the culture. As you might expect, EC churches started by folks from liberal main-line church with weak theology – surprise – are weak, theologically. EC churches that are led by folks from conservatives with strong theology – once again, surprise – are not weak, theologically. The more liberal EC churches are part of a loose network called ‘Emergent’ or ‘Emergent Village’. The more conservative ones refer to themselves as ‘Emerging’. Scot McKnight does the best job I’ve seen defining the movement than anyone else I’ve read, which you can check out here.

One of the first individuals to identify the movement, and in so doing, became its most visible ‘leader’, is Brian McLaren. I do not agree with his universalist bent of late, and disagree with parts of his theology. However, McLaren is not the ECM, and of the living, breathing Emergents I’ve met, most didn’t know who he is, nor do they ‘tow his line’. A couple years back, McLaren took a stance of not commenting on the morality of homosexuality and asked for a moratorium on the issue, but other leaders in the movement disagreed with him (Mark Driscoll doing so rather strenuously).

The ‘big name’ EC churches (Mars Hill (Seattle), Solomon’s Porch, Vintage Faith, Mosaic) do not, but of the smaller ones, some do and some don’t – once again, it seems, based more on their denominational underpinnings than some new theological drift. Bob Hyatt, a pastor of an ECM church, had this to say on the subject:

I think our stance would be what Stan Grenz called “Welcoming, but not affirming.” If people do not know Jesus, I don’t much care who or what they are sleeping with when they come to our community. I want to welcome them and tell them about Jesus.

When they become a follower of Jesus, however, the story changes somewhat in that there are many things that God wants to change in us, our sexual ethic included. Though our elders have decided to take an individual case-by-case approach with everyone and their situation, our general stance is that same-sex sexual behavior is not compatible with being a Christ follower and needs to be left behind.

And this as well:

By the way, I can name at least one well-known emerging church that has no issue with committed same sex sexual relationships… but I honestly don’t think they are representative.
However, many individuals who identify with the emerging church movement, whose background is the mainline church will share this view…

But I agree- the broad stroke “the ECM” believes this is silly. It’s a nonsensical statement most of the time it’s made, since on other issues and this one in particular, at least half of the “ECM” people you ask will express a different view.

I suppose it’s like saying finding a group of southern baptists who are KJV Only and assuming the Rev Silva must be as well. Or saying that since Mosaic and Saddleback are SBC, that Silva must be down with McManus and Rick Warren.

He snorts, but this is the type of thing he does to the emerging church all the time.

I would agree with Bob’s assessment, as well. That said, though, I – once again – do not consider myself emergent, by any means. What I would really like to see is balance, as I’ve written about before here.

UPDATE: I reworded my initial sentence, based on Bob’s comment below, to more accurately reflect my position, and to be sensitive to where this wording IS important.

Issue: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton want to improve the ‘Baptist’ image, and Carter has started a Baptist voice initiative to try and improve the Baptist image beyond narrow-minded fundamentalism.  Additionally, Carter has written a book and has taken a public stand that the current issues in Israel/Palestine are all on the heads of the (Jewish) Israelis, prompting the resignation of 15 board members from his organization.

Slice/CRN Take: Both the Baptist initiative and the Carter debacle are signs of Clinton trying to get the church to look the other way on sexual infidelity and as a sign of moral anarchy.

My Take:  I am mostly in agreement with CRN.

• I agree to a point with Slice on the Carter & Clinton’s initiative in the Baptist church.  I am personally in disagreement with denominational organization, and such initiatives by Carter and Clinton would be impossible (along with the drift of the mainline churches into completely unsound doctrine around gay marriage, gender issues, universalism and the like) were it not for these denominational conventions.  That said, I don’t actually see the Baptist church taking a ‘look the other way’ official policy on infidelity.
• Carter’s recent efforts in the Middle-east have been fairly embarrassing all around along with his efforts on most other fronts.  While he IS a man of some integrity, that does not always translate into sound judgement or wise foreign policy.

I’m sure someone will disagree with me…

Issue: Bishop TD Jakes has been invited to speak at the Creative Church Conference (C3) Feb. 22-23, 2007, along with Ed Young Jr., Ed Young Sr. and Mark Driscoll.  Both Youngs are members of the SBC, TD Jakes comes from a Pentecostal background and Driscoll is either emergent (if you ask the TR’s) or is a culturally relevant, but hard-core Calvinist (if you ask the emergents).

Slice/CRN Take: Jakes’ church has a differing view of the Trinity that is heretical.  By sharing the same stage with Jakes, the Youngs are ‘unequally yoked’ and, as a result, the SBC is turning a blind eye to heresy, and, therefore becoming apostate.  “Reverend” Ken Silva has written to Dr. Frank Page (president of the SBC) and Ed Young, Jr. to plea for them to prevent this.  He has also written to Jakes to request clarification of his view of the trinity.

My Take: I see two issues here:

1. Speaking on the same stage with a figure who will speak on a topic (church leadership techniques) that has nothing to with the area of controvery (a definition of Trinity) does not give carte blanche endorsement to everything that individual has to say.  If he says something out of line with scripture, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to grant discernment to the pastors who will be in attendance?  Ken’s increasingly shrill calls will most likely go unanswered – not because the gentlemen he has written are hell-bent on “Satan-inspired ecumenical ‘union’”, but because, as people in such public positions often do, they will see his calls for what they are – Guilt-by-Association (GBA) tactics from a hyper-critical ‘discernment blogger’.
2. I believe Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity does differ from the traditional doctrine (which, should be noted, was developed long after the last of the Apostles died).  Before the Church became overwhelmingly Western and Hellenistic, it still accepted that God was both One (Deut 6:4 – the most important command) and Three (Genesis 1:1-3), but it did not try to reconcile this seeming descrepency.  Some tried to insist that He was really One (to try and make Jesus less than God), and others insisted He was Three (Creator, Holy Spirit and Word) AND One.  As I read Jakes’ church’s definition (and it would be nice to see more clarification on WHY his church defines this differently), it still insists on both Three and One, but tries to define how the 3 and the 1 operate together.  I am still failing to see, though, how this makes the God they worship – who they would say is YHWH – different from the God we worship – who we would also say is YHWH.  I am NOT looking for what Ken says interpretively they believe (as I’m sure they would not agree with his straw-man definition as he has currently written it), but what they actually believe.  So, until presented with evidence that Jakes’ church believe in a different God (i.e. Vishnu, Allah, etc.) or a different Jesus (a la Mormonism) or a different gospel (a la JW’s), I am hesitant to not consider him a Christian.

 

I am certain there will folks who disagree with me, with CRN/Slice, or both.