CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
\nPO Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271
\nFeature Article: JAE450<\/p>\n
NAVIGATING THE EMERGING CHURCH HIGHWAY
\nby Mark Driscoll<\/p>\n
This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 4 (2008). For further information or to
\nsubscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http:\/\/www.equip.org<\/p>\n
SYNOPSIS
\nWading through the entire emerging church milieu is incredibly complicated. In this article I seek to
\nprovide a simple but accurate means of navigating the emerging church highway by focusing on its four
\nlanes and their leaders. For the purposes of this article I will define them as Emerging Evangelicals,
\nHouse Church Evangelicals, Emerging Reformers, and Emergent Liberals. What the first three lanes have
\nin common is theological orthodoxy. Churches in these lanes are not interested in reconsidering major
\nChristian doctrines such as those that view the Bible as God’s Word, God as triune, Jesus as God and the
\nonly means of salvation, humanity as sinful, all sex outside of heterosexual marriage (including
\nhomosexuality) as sin, and heaven and hell as literal, conscious, and eternal. In the fourth lane are the
\nEmergent Liberals, who are most controversial and are not theologically evangelical. The three main
\nleaders of this lane are Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell. The Emergent Liberal lane of the
\nemerging church has drifted away from a discussion about how to contextualize timeless Christian truth
\nin timely cultural ways and has instead come to focus on creating a new Christianity.
\nIn 1997, I was a struggling church planter of the newly launched Mars Hill Church in Seattle,
\nWashington, when an evangelical networking ministry in Texas named Leadership Network invited me
\nto speak at a conference for young pastors focused on reaching younger people. Having never even been
\nto a pastors’ conference, I was honored at the request. I spoke about the cultural transition from the
\nmodern to the postmodern world, rather than generational issues.<\/p>\n
Much to my surprise, the topic hit a nerve and requests for media interviews, consultations, and speaking
\nopportunities began coming in from around the country. At that time, Leadership Network hired Doug
\nPagitt to oversee what it called its Young Leaders Network. The initial team included Pagitt, myself, and
\nChris Seay, and soon we added Brian McLaren at Pagitt’s invitation. Loosely affiliated with the team
\nwere men such as pastor and author Dan Kimball, youth pastor Tony Jones, pastor and www.Ooze.com
\nfounder Spencer Burke, and blogger and itinerant pastor Andrew Jones. We began speaking around the
\ncountry together at various conferences and churches.
\nBefore long, I resigned from this team. Still in my mid-twenties, rather than traveling around the country
\ntelling others how to do ministry, I needed to focus my energies on caring for my pregnant wife, personally
\nmaturing, and improving the health of our struggling church plant. Furthermore, I had serious theological
\ndifferences with some men on the team and was concerned about their drift from biblical truth. The team
\neventually split from Leadership Network and formed what is now known as the Emergent Village.
\nThe conversation that began among generally younger pastors regarding how the church could best
\nposition itself to reach people who were increasingly more postmodern culturally has grown considerably.<\/p>\n
2
\nWhat once was the equivalent of a dirt path that only a few young pastors walked on has become a fourlane
\nhighway, complete with a growing caravan of Christians merging onto their preferred lane behind
\ntheir leaders in an effort to find a church for the postmodern world. In the remainder of this article I will
\nseek to delineate the lanes and their leaders, though I would like to preface my remarks in four ways.
\nFirst, people mentioned in this article, with the exception of Rob Bell, range from acquaintances to
\nfriends. Although there are some theological disagreements among us to varying degrees, I do love each
\none and have found all of them to be gracious and kind toward me over the years. They care deeply for
\ntheir families, churches, and friends.
\nSecond, we all agree that in the past generation or two there has been a significant cultural shift in the
\nprevailing worldview from modernism, which led to rationalism, skepticism, and atheism, to
\npostmodernism, which has led to experientialism, pluralism, and spiritism. The ministry methods that
\nsucceeded in evangelizing people during the modern age simply are no longer working because the
\naverage lost person is culturally different than he or she was a few generations ago.
\nThird, I agree that churches and Christians need to assume a missionary outlook to ministry. By this I
\nmean that not only should we send missionaries across the world to evangelize lost pagan1 peoples, but
\nwe should also send missionaries across the street because the people there are lost pagans, too.
\nFourth, the lines between the lanes of the emerging church highway are not always clearly marked,
\nbecause the friendships between leaders in each lane compel them to refrain from a critical spirit; leaders
\neven occasionally change lanes, depending on the issue. The lines are unclear, further, because the
\nemerging church includes seemingly every form of church (e.g., house church, church-within-a-church,
\nchurch plant, established church, liturgical high church, nonliturgical charismatic church) from every
\nkind of Christian tradition (e.g., mainline Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, evangelical, denominational,
\nindependent). As a result, there is great confusion that is only increased by the fact that the entire
\nmovement, or conversation, depending on who you ask, is referred to as the emerging church, and there
\nis also a lane of the emerging church called the Emergent Village, which is a separate nonprofit
\norganization. If that were not enough, the various lanes of the emerging church are now present
\nthroughout the world, and the theological conversations and explorations that are occurring via the
\nInternet on everything from blogs to discussion boards are ever changing.
\nFOUR LANES ON THE EMERGING CHURCH HIGHWAY
\nWading through the entire emerging church milieu, admittedly, is incredibly complicated; therefore, I
\nwill seek to provide a simple but accurate introduction to the emerging church in this article by focusing
\non the four lanes and their leaders. For the purposes of this article I will define them as Emerging
\nEvangelicals, House Church Evangelicals, Emerging Reformers, and Emergent Liberals.
\nWhat the first three lanes have in common is theological orthodoxy. They are not interested in
\nreconsidering major Christian doctrines such as those that view the Bible as God’s Word, God as triune,
\nJesus as God and the only means of salvation, humanity as sinful, all sex outside of heterosexual marriage
\n(including homosexuality) as sin, and heaven and hell as literal, conscious, and eternal. Therefore, I will
\nbriefly examine each of the three evangelical lanes of the emerging church and spend most of our time on
\nthe Emergent Liberals, who are not theologically evangelical and who are the most controversial.
\nEmerging Evangelicals
\nEmergent evangelicals are interested in updating worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership
\nstructures so as to be relevant to postmodern-minded people. They do not place as much emphasis as do
\nother “lanes” on actively engaging in their local culture and loving and serving people as the church.
\nThey are divided over such things as the role of women in ministry, the proper mode of baptism, and
\ncharismatic gifts. Emerging Evangelicals commonly begin alternative worship services within evangelical
\nchurches to keep generally younger Christians from leaving their churches. They also plant new churches
\nto reach people who are not being reached by existing churches.<\/p>\n
3
\nLeaders in this lane look to pastors and authors such as Chris Seay, Dan Kimball, Rick McKinley, John
\nBurke, and Donald Miller, whose book Blue Like Jazz,2 which deconstructed the evangelical subculture,
\nhas become a bestseller. The common critique of Emerging Evangelicals is that they are doing little more
\nthan cool church for hip young Christians.
\nHouse Church Evangelicals
\nHouse Church Evangelicals are dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g., traditional, seeker-sensitive,
\npurpose-driven, contemporary). They bolster their criticism of traditional church by noting that America is
\nbecoming less Christian, and Christians are not living lives that are markedly different from non-Christians,
\nthereby proving that current church forms have failed to create life transformation. They subsequently
\npropose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as that of house churches.
\nHouse Church Evangelicals look to house church movement leaders such as Neil Cole and Shane
\nClaiborne, who made the cover of Christianity Today for his efforts to encourage simple churches,3 along
\nwith Australian missional authors Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. Perhaps the best-known House
\nChurch Evangelical leader is George Barna, who argues against such things as Sunday church services in
\na building with a pastor preaching a sermon in his books Revolution4 and Pagan Christianity?5 The
\ncommon critique of House Church Evangelicals is that they are collecting disgruntled Christians who are
\noverreacting to the megachurch trend and advocating a house church trend that works well in some
\ncultures but has not proven effective in Western nations.
\nEmerging Reformers
\nEmerging Reformers see the postmodern world as an opportunity for the church to practice the semper
\nreformanda or “always reforming” cry of the Protestant Reformation. Emerging Reformers are charismatic
\nin terms of spiritual gifts and worship and aggressive in church planting, particularly in major cities.
\nEmerging Reformers, unlike all of the other lanes of the Emerging Church, are more firm on such things
\nas gender roles that state that only qualified men may serve as pastors and preachers. Curiously, the
\nSeptember 2006 cover story of Christianity Today declared that the two hottest theologies among younger
\npastors in America are the Emerging Reformed and Emergent Liberal lanes.6
\nIn addition to evangelical beliefs, Emerging Reformers have a commitment to the Reformed theological
\ntradition as shaped by such historical figures as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Puritans,
\nJonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, along with such broadly recognized evangelical leaders as Billy
\nGraham, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and John Stott. Emerging Reformers look to contemporary men
\nsuch as John Piper, D. A. Carson, and Wayne Grudem for theology, along with Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer
\nfor missiology. They also look to church planting pastors such as Matt Chandler, Darrin Patrick, and me.
\nThe common critique of the Emerging Reformers is that they are merely repackaging tired Reformed
\nfundamentalism. Critics add that they are outdated in their understanding of gender roles, too narrow in
\ntheir theological convictions, and do not really fit into the category of the emerging church at all.
\nEmergent Liberals
\nEmergent Liberals range from the theological fringe of orthodoxy to heresy that crosses the line by
\ncritiquing key evangelical doctrines, such as the Bible as authoritative divine revelation, God as Trinity,
\nthe sinfulness of human nature, the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus’ death in our place to pay the penalty for
\nour sins on the cross, the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation, the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sex
\noutside of heterosexual marriage, and the conscious, eternal torments of hell. Some emerging house
\nchurches are also Emergent Liberal in their doctrine.
\nEmergent Liberals are networked by organizations like the Emergent Village, directed by author and
\ntheologian Tony Jones, who is no longer a youth pastor but is involved at Doug Pagitt’s church, along
\nwith other prominent Emergent leaders such as Doug Pagitt, KarenWard, and Tim Keel. The most visible
\nEmergent Liberal leaders are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell.<\/p>\n
4
\nThe common critique of Emergent Liberals is that they are recycling the liberal doctrinal debates of a
\nprevious generation and are not seeing significant conversion growth, but rather merely gathering
\ndisgruntled Christians and people intrigued by false doctrine. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern
\nBaptist Theological Seminary, offers this critique: “When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the
\ngospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of
\nScripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as
\nhomosexuality, this [Emergent Liberal] movement simply refuses to answer the questions.” 7 Mohler
\nfurther asserts that the “Emergent movement represents a significant challenge to biblical Christianity.” 8
\nHaving outlined the four major lanes of the emerging church, I will turn my focus to the three most
\nprominent leaders of the Emergent Liberal lane, two of which are key leaders of the Emergent Village.
\nBrian McLaren. Brian McLaren has a master’s degree in English from the University of Maryland. He was
\nthe pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church in the Baltimore\/Washington D.C. area before leaving to
\nfocus on speaking, writing, and helping to lead the Emergent Village. Being older than many pastors in the
\nemerging church, McLaren serves as a well-spoken father-figure of sorts. He is also a gifted writer. Having
\nspent some time with Brian, I can attest to the fact that he is a personally gracious, whimsical, engaging,
\nand enjoyable man. His influence is so great that Time magazine declared him one of the twenty-five most
\ninfluential evangelicals.9 In the foreword of McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy (2006 edition), gay marriage
\nadvocate10 Phyllis Tickle declares him to be the Martin Luther for the twenty-first century.
\nMcLaren is admittedly eclectic in his theology and nearly impossible to define on most major theological
\nissues, which makes him a lightning rod for interpretation and criticism. For example, in the subtitle to
\nhis most theological book, A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren explains himself as “a missional, evangelical,
\npost\/protestant, liberal\/conservative, mystical\/poetic, biblical, charismatic\/contemplative, fundamentalist\/
\nCalvinist, Anabaptist\/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful,
\nemergent, unfinished Christian.” 11 Regarding McLaren’s continual theological ambiguity, D. A. Carson,
\nresearch professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the author of more than
\nforty-five books, has said,
\nIt’s not because he [McLaren] doesn’t want to give any answer at all, it’s because he wants to give
\nanswers that are fuzzy. That is his intent. It’s not because he is a clever diplomat who is trying to
\navoid the toughest questions by using ambiguous answers of a diplomatic cast, but everybody who
\nunderstands the language knows what he really means. He really does want all of these edges
\ntaken away. He wants to avoid what he perceives to be the angularity of confessional truth. And
\nhe’s very good at dancing around.”\u00a6At the end of the day, [he seems to avoid] some of the
\nangularities of the Bible itself”\u00a6.Brian is so careful to dance around the edges that he’s shrewd
\nenough not to come into the position where he simply says, “I know that’s what the Bible says, and
\nI disbelieve it.” At some point, when a person does that, then categories like “heresy” are
\nappropriate categories.12
\nCarson goes on to say that by skirting and being careful not to admit his disbelief in such issues, McLaren
\ngives “the impression that they’re either not important or he wants to reinterpret them,” which makes
\nCarson understand why others tend to apply such categories. He continues, “Do I think he’s saying some
\ndangerous things- dangerous in the sense that he’s diverting people from things that are central to the
\nGospel, that are nonnegotiable as part of the Gospel- he’s diverting people away from those things? Yes,
\nin that sense, I think he’s dangerous.” 13
\nPerhaps one of the most frequent criticisms of McLaren is his unwillingness to agree that homosexual
\nactivity is sinful. When asked for his position on homosexuality by Time magazine he said, “You know
\nwhat, the thing that breaks my heart is that there’s no way I can answer it without hurting someone on
\neither side.” 14 In a story for Leadership Journal, he wrote, “I hesitate in answering -the homosexual
\nquestion’ not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I’m a pastor, and
\npastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even
\nhonest: we must also be”\u00a6pastoral.” 15 McLaren goes on to say, “Frankly, many of us don’t know what we
\nshould think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence.” 16<\/p>\n
5
\nWhat is particularly troubling about McLaren’s ongoing unwillingness to answer the gay issue is that he
\ndisguises his ambiguity and uncertainty as Christlike pastoral care. Having pastored a church for twentyfour
\nyears, it seems implausible that he would have no idea whether homosexual activity is acceptable or
\nthat he simply would have declined to answer any of the questions from his people wondering whether
\nthey could have gay sex over the course of those years.
\nTheological Influences. Speaking of his influences, McLaren has said, “I really like [Jesus Seminar fellows]
\nMarcus Borg and John Dominic [Crossan; they] have a new book coming out called The Last Week [that]
\nfollows”\u00a6what we call passion week, or holy week. It is really a great book.”\u00a6.evangelicals tend to think
\nthat they’re the only people who take the Bible seriously. I am so impressed with how seriously these
\nguys take the Gospel of Mark, really the last week of Jesus. It’s really stunning.” 17 Marcus Borg is an
\navowed panentheist,18 and John Dominic Crossan, cochairman of the Jesus Seminar, told Time magazine
\nthat after the crucifixion, “Jesus’ corpse went the way of all abandoned criminals’ bodies: it was probably
\nbarely covered with dirt, vulnerable to the wild dogs that roamed the wasteland of the execution
\ngrounds.” 19 The subsequent “tales” of Jesus’ entombment and resurrection, he says, were merely the
\nresult of “wishful thinking.” 20
\nMcLaren appears to be influenced by other questionable works as well, which is another issue of concern.
\nThe fact that he recommends and endorses books filled with false teaching is also very concerning.
\nMcLaren repeatedly has endorsed the book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross,21 which says that the
\nbiblical categories for the explanation of Jesus’ death were taken from paganism, then goes on to reason
\nthat we likewise should take present-day paganism, such as feminism and Marxism, as the categories by
\nwhich we interpret the death of Jesus.
\nHe also endorsed Steve Chalke’s book The Lost Message of Jesus, saying:
\nSteve Chalke’s new book could help save Jesus from Christianity. That’s a strange way of putting
\nit, I know. Not that the real Jesus needs saving. But when one contrasts the vital portrait of Jesus
\npainted by Steve with the tense caricature drawn so often by modern Christianity, one can’t help
\nbut feeling the “Jesus'” of modern Christianity is in trouble. The Jesus introduced by Steve in these
\npages sounds like someone who can truly save us from our trouble.22
\nChalke’s book equates the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, that “Christ died for our sins,” 23 which
\nis the essence of the gospel as defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3, to “a form of cosmic child abuse.” 24 On this
\nerror D. A. Carson said, “I have to say, kindly but as forcefully as I can, that”\u00a6if words mean anything,
\nboth McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel.” 25
\nMcLaren’s endorsement of Alan Jones’s book Reimagining Christianity says, “Alan Jones is a pioneer in
\nreimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and
\nencourages me deeply.” 26 In that book, Jones argues that the cross of Jesus should be “reimagined”
\nbecause it is a vile doctrine: “The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must
\nend, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of
\nsuffering and the vindictive God behind it.” 27 Jones goes on to say, “The other thread of just criticism
\naddresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry god. Penal
\nsubstitution was the name of this vile doctrine.” 28
\nAlso alarming is the fact that McLaren wrote the foreword to Spencer Burke’s book A Heretic’s Guide to
\nEternity. Spencer Burke hosts Soularize, which he touts as the first postmodern emergent annual
\nconference. In the foreword, McLaren says, “It’s easy for inquisition-launchers to go on fault-finding
\nmissions”\u00a6.What’s more challenging, and, regarding this book, much more worthwhile, is to instead go
\non a truth-finding mission. And, yes, even in a book with -heretic’ in the title, I believe any honest reader
\ncan find much truth worth seeking.” 29
\nIn the book, Burke argues that hell simply does not exist: “The God I connect with does not assign
\nhumans to hell.” 30 In the same vein, he says, “When I say I’m a universalist, what I really mean is that I
\ndon’t believe you have to convert to any particular religion to find God.” 31 He also rejects the death of
\nJesus on the cross for our sins: “Although the link between grace and sin has driven Christianity for<\/p>\n
6
\ncenturies, it just doesn’t resonate in our culture anymore. It repulses rather than attracts. People are
\nbecoming much less inclined to acknowledge themselves as -sinners in need of a Savior.'” 32 Rejecting the
\nexclusivity of Jesus Christ, Burke says God is “for anyone and everyone- Jewish, Christian, Buddhist,
\nwhatever”\u00a6.What counts is not a belief system but a holistic approach of following what you feel,
\nexperience, discover, and believe.” 33 Finally, he admits, “What’s more, I’m not sure I believe in God
\nexclusively as a person anymore either”\u00a6.I now incorporate a panentheist view.” 34 Scot McKnight,
\nprofessor of Religious Studies at North Park University and an avowed fan of the Emergent Village35
\nsays, “Is Spencer a -heretic’? He says he is, and I see no reason to think he believes in the Trinity from
\nreading this book. That’s what heresy means to me.” 36
\nMcLaren may have endorsed Burke’s book because he himself does not believe that people will
\nexperience the conscious, eternal torments of hell (which Jesus spoke of more often than anyone else in
\nScripture) if they are not saved by Jesus. McLaren says that he is “trying to find an alternative to both
\ntraditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly
\naccept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell].” 37 He goes on
\nto say “we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-ofthe-
\nuniverse statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of
\nrejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking.” 38
\nDoug Pagitt. Doug Pagitt has worked closely with McLaren for many years. Pagitt graduated with a
\nmaster of arts in theology from Bethel Seminary and now pastors Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis. In the
\nbook Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, to which we both contributed, Pagitt said that “what we
\n[Christians] believe is not -timeless,'” 39 that theology will be “ever-changing,” 40 and that “complex
\nunderstandings meant for all people, in all places, for all times, are simply not possible.” 41 For Pagitt,
\ntheology is not timeless truth, a “faith that was once for all delivered” as Jude 3 says, but changing
\nperspective.
\nRegarding human sinfulness, Pagitt asserts that in the historic conflict between Augustine, who defended
\nthe doctrine of original sin, and Pelagius, who denied original sin, Augustine’s influence has had “too
\nmuch sway.” 42 He also states that Pelagius was excommunicated from Rome “on false pretenses for
\npersonal and political, not primarily doctrinal reasons.” 43 Pagitt thus doctrinally defends Pelagius, who
\nwas denounced as a heretic at the Council of Carthage in 418 for denying human sinfulness.
\nPagitt also has promoted the reconsideration of paganism, which is the belief that there is no distinction
\nbetween Creator and creation, saying, “The idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit,
\nor creation from creator, is being reconsidered.” 44 Romans 1:25 defines paganism plainly: “They
\nexchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”
\nThe result of pagan thinking, according to the rest of Romans 1, is the approval of sexual sins including
\nhomosexuality; in many ways, sinful sex is the worship and sacrament of paganism. This helps to explain
\nwhy during a conference called Emergence 2007 hosted by our church in Seattle and moderated by Krista
\nTippett from NPR, I asked Pagitt, “Is homosexuality an acceptable practice for a Christian?” Pagitt
\nanswered plainly, “Yes.”
\nTheological Influences. Pagitt says that Henry Churchill King’s book Reconstruction in Theology45
\n“encapsulated [his] sentiment about theology.” 46 In his day, King was among the premier liberal
\ntheologians. He taught and later served as president of Oberlin College, succeeding Charles Finney in
\neach of those roles. Finney denied original sin and believed in the essential neutrality, if not goodness, of
\nhuman nature.
\nKing was among the heroes of liberal Christianity for reconciling Christianity with scientific evolution
\nand historical and literary criticism, and rejecting the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement
\nwhereby Jesus died in our place to pay our penalty for our sins. King embraced the social gospel
\nmovement and the political agenda of The New Republic magazine, with which he was involved, and
\ndisdained the thought of God punishing sin. Perhaps most curious is that King’s writings are littered
\nwith many of the same phrases commonly used by Emergent Liberals, such as “emergent evolution,”
\n“theology as conversation,” “progressive revelation,” and “personal relation.” 47<\/p>\n
7
\nRob Bell. The third and arguably most popular leader in the Emergent Liberal lane of the emerging
\nchurch is Rob Bell. Bell received a master of divinity degree from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the
\nfounding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan (not affiliated with the Mars Hill
\nChurch I pastor in Seattle), a best-selling author, the creative force behind the NOOMA videos,48 and was
\ndubbed the “next Billy Graham” by the Chicago Sun-Times.49
\nThe relationship between Bell, McLaren, and Pagitt includes the latter two men having preached for Bell
\nat his church. Rob Bell’s wife, Kristen, spoke of McLaren’s influence, saying, “I grew up thinking that
\nwe’ve figured out the Bible”\u00a6that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means.
\nAnd yet I feel like life is big again- like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.” 50 She goes
\non to say that during her and Rob’s rethinking of the Bible and Christian doctrine, their “lifeboat was A
\nNew Kind of Christian,” written by McLaren.51
\nRegarding the virgin conception of Jesus, Rob Bell speculates that if “Jesus had a real, earthly, biological
\nfather named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a
\nshadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in
\nto appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the
\ntime,” we would essentially not lose any significant part of our faith because it is more about how we
\nlive.52 To be fair, Bell does not deny the virgin conception of Jesus, but he does deny that it is of any
\nnotable theological importance. This, however, is a dangerous move for four reasons, as I have written in
\nmy book Vintage Jesus,53 and summarize as follows.
\nFirst, the only alternative to the virgin conception of Jesus offered in Scripture is that Mary was a sexually
\nsinful woman who conceived Jesus illegitimately (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 8:41). Second, if the virgin
\nconception were untrue, then the story of Jesus would change dramatically: we would have a sexually
\npromiscuous young woman lying about God’s miraculous hand in the birth of her son, raising that son to
\ndeclare he is God, and then joining his religion (Acts 1:14). Third, if we are willing to disbelieve the virgin
\nconception, we are flatly and plainly stating that Scripture may contain mistakes, or even outright lies. In
\nhis book The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen said, “Everyone admits that the Bible represents
\nJesus as having been conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. The only question is
\nwhether in making that representation the Bible is true or false.” 54 Machen went on to argue that “if the
\nBible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of
\nthe Bible in any high sense, is gone.” 55 Fourth, in the early days of the Christian church, there was, in fact,
\na group who rejected the virgin conception of Jesus, the heretical Ebionites, and it is both unwise and
\nunfaithful for a prominent pastor to accept a doctrine that the church has condemned as false.
\nCan a true Christian deny the virgin conception of Christ? As Mohler has said, “The answer to that question
\nmust be a decisive No”\u00a6.Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the
\nChrist. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
\nand born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine[;] it is an irreducible part of
\nthe biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.” 56
\nTheological Influences. Bell has said, “For a mind-blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine
\ncreativity [which means we are cocreators with God], set aside three months and read Ken Wilber’s A
\nBrief History of Everything.” 57 Curiously, McLaren similarly has said, “I am trying (with Ken Wilber’s help)
\nto make clear that I believe there is something above and beyond the current alternatives of modern
\nfundamentalism\/absolutism and pluralistic relativism.” 58 McLaren enthusiastically recommends Wilber’s
\nA Theory of Everything and The Marriage of Sense and Soul: “The way of thinking Wilber promotes and
\nexemplifies- which he calls -integral’ thinking and which I call -emergent’ thinking- is powerful and
\nimportant, in my opinion.” 59
\nTo learn more about Wilber I contacted author Peter Jones,60 who is perhaps the leading Christian expert
\non paganism and the new spirituality. In a personal e-mail, he told me, “The arch pagan philosopher is
\nKen Wilber.” 61 Jones went on to say,
\nWilber is a practicing Mahayana Buddhist who believes that reality is ultimately a non-dual union
\nof emptiness and form. He speaks of “unitary non-dual (monistic) consciousness,” what some call<\/p>\n
8
\n“the dharma of non-dual enlightenment,” he is a promoter of the Perennial Philosophy (“\u00a6a name for
\nthe religion of esoteric paganism) and the “great chain of being.” Wilber promotes yoga, Zen,
\nKabbalah, [and] tantric Yoga (Hindu sex techniques). His think tank, Integral Institute, includes
\nsuch luminaries as Deepak Chopra, Michael Murphy (of Esalen and a key figure in the Human
\nPotential movement), Jon Kabat-Zin, Buddhist healer and professor of medicine at UMass, [and]
\nFrancisco Varela, a Chilean biologist and Tibetan Buddhist.” 62
\nJones went on to explain that according to Wilber (the author McLaren and Bell so enthusiastically
\nrecommend) in A Theory of Everything, Christianity is fourth among the nine levels of human evolutionary
\nspiritual consciousness and will be outgrown and replaced with more enlightened understandings of
\nGod and the world, such as green egalitarianism, ultimately culminating in the integration of varying
\nreligions and ideologies into a global utopia of a sort- all without Jesus.63
\nTHE END OF THE ROAD
\nThe multilane highway of emerging Christianity has continued its journey forward into the postmodern
\nworld with Emerging Evangelicals, House Church Evangelicals, and Emerging Reformers functioning as
\nmissionaries reaching out to postmodern people. The Emergent Liberals, however, have taken an offramp
\nand now are not reaching out to postmoderns, but are blazing a new path in search of a new land of
\npostmodern Christianity.
\nAs Rob Bell has said, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering
\nChristianity.” 64 Echoing this sentiment, despite two millennia of Christianity since the days when Jesus
\nlast walked the earth, McLaren says, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to
\nbe -saved’?…I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has
\narrived at orthodoxy.” 65
\nAs the lane of the Emergent Liberals becomes its own highway that goes in a different doctrinal direction
\nthan historical orthodox Christianity, more and more evangelicals will turn around in order to drive in
\none of the three other lanes of the emerging church. It seems inevitable, though I am no prophet, that the
\nEmergent Liberal lane of the emerging church will continue to drift away from a discussion about how to
\ncontextualize timeless Christian truth in timely cultural ways to an interfaith dialogue with less and less
\ndistinction between the religions of the world and the deity of Jesus Christ.
\nThis is already encouraged by the teachings of McLaren, who said, “Jesus did not come to create another
\nexclusive religion,” 66 and “I don’t hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion.
\nBut I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.” 67 In addition, he has
\nalso written that
\nmany Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine [not the
\ndivine]…many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people [not God]….A
\nshared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently
\nneeded religious dialogue- and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet
\nmay depend on such dialogue. This reappraisal of Jesus’ message [as God] may be the only project
\ncapable of saving a number of religions.68
\nSince Jews do not believe Jesus is God, Hindus believe there are more than a million gods, and Jesus said
\nHe is the only God, it is inconceivable that one simultaneously could be a faithful follower of Jesus and a
\npracticing devotee of any religion but Christianity.
\nTo bring all religions together, Emergent Liberals will need to compromise the doctrinal truths of
\nChristianity even further. McLaren essentially predicted this: “Christians in the emerging culture may look
\nback on our doctrinal structures (statements of faith, systematic theologies) as we look back on medieval
\ncathedrals: possessing a real beauty that should be preserved, but now largely vacant, not inhabited or
\nused much anymore, more tourist attraction than holy place.” 69 One is left to wonder what will replace that
\nhistoric Christian orthodoxy, since the Emergent Liberals have a low view of the divine inspiration,
\nperfection, authority, and timelessness of Scripture, which Rob Bell says does not consist of “first and
\nforemost timeless truths” 70 and McLaren says is “not a look-it-up encyclopedia of timeless moral truths.” 71<\/p>\n
9
\nAmid such great confusion, McLaren encourages us to look to Dorothy of Wizard of Oz fame rather than
\nto Jesus for insight: “At first glance, Dorothy is all wrong as a model of leadership. She is the wrong
\ngender (female) and the wrong age (young). Rather than being a person with all the answers, who knows
\nwhat’s up and where to go and what’s what, she is herself lost, a seeker, often bewildered, and
\nvulnerable. These characteristics would disqualify her from modern leadership. But they serve as her best
\ncredentials for postmodern leadership.” 72
\nThe cults of the modern world, such as Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism, sprang forth from the
\ninfecting of biblical truth by modern philosophy. Unless there is correction, similar cults will spring forth
\nfrom the infecting of biblical truth by postmodern philosophy. With Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt recently
\nparticipating in the Dalai Lama’s Seeds of Compassion Tour by praying with members of other religions
\nand sitting on the stage as panelists discussing the need for unity between all religions, I fear that they
\nmay have already passed the end of the road.73
\nNOTES
\n1. By pagan I mean the worship of created things rather than the Creator God as Romans 1:25 explains. Practically, paganism is
\nliving one’s life in ultimate devotion to someone or something other than Jesus Christ. Examples include things created by God
\nsuch as the environment, the human body and sinful sexuality, and demons in the name of vague spirituality along with things
\nhuman beings create such as philosophical-like postmodernism and new spiritualities that accommodate all religions.
\n2. Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003).
\n3. Rob Moll, “The New Monasticism,” Christianity Today, September 2005,
\nhttp:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/ct\/2005\/september\/16.38.html.
\n4. George Barna, Revolution (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006).
\n5. Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity? (Carol Stream, IL: BarnaBooks, 2008).
\n6. Collin Hansen, “Young, Restless, Reformed,” Christianity Today, September 2006,
\nhttp:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/ct\/2006\/september\/42.32.html.
\n7. Albert Mohler, -A Generous Orthodoxy’- Is It Orthodox?” Crosswalk.com, February 16, 2005,
\nhttp:\/\/www.purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/?random.
\n8. Ibid.
\n9. David Van Biema, “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” Time, February 7, 2005,
\nhttp:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/covers\/1101050207\/photoessay\/.
\n10. Tickle wrote, for example, that the work What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage, by David G. Meyers
\nand Letha Dawson Scanzoni (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), left her “giddy with”\u00a6hope and belief” (see
\nhttp:\/\/www.davidmyers.org\/ Brix?pageID=118).
\n11. Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), cover.
\n12. D. A. Carson, interview by Kim Lawton, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, July 8, 2005, episode no. 845,
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wnet\/religionandethics\/week845\/interview2.html.
\n13. Ibid.
\n14. Van Biema.
\n15. Brian D. McLaren, “Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response,” Out of Ur, Leadership Journal
\nBlog, January 23, 2006, http:\/\/blog.christianitytoday.com\/outofur\/archives\/2006\/01\/brian_mclaren_o.html.
\n16. Ibid.
\n17. Brian D. McLaren, interview by Leif Hansen, The Bleeding Purple Podcast, January 8 and 12, 2006,
\nhttp:\/\/www.purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/?random.
\n18. See Marcus Borg, interview by Liza Hetherington, “Meeting God Again,”
\nhttp:\/\/www.gracecathedral.org\/enrichment\/interviews\/int_19970601.shtml. Panentheism is a form of paganism that does not
\nsee a distinction between God the Creator and his creation, but rather considers creation to be the body that houses God so that
\nthe two are not separate.
\n19. Richard N. Ostling, “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time (January 10, 1994),
\nhttp:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/magazine\/article\/0,9171,979938,00.html.
\n20. Ibid.
\n21. For example, see Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 47n17.
\n22. Brian D. McLaren, “Praise for The Lost Message of Jesus,” in Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand
\nRapids: Zondervan, 2003).
\n23. All Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version.
\n24. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 182.
\n25. D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 186.
\n26. Brian D. McLaren, “Advance Praise,” in Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your
\nMind (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005), back cover.
\n27. Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons,
\n2005), 132.<\/p>\n
10
\n28. Ibid., 168.
\n29. Brian D. McLaren, foreword to Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006),
\nix-x.
\n30. Spencer Burke, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, 199.
\n31. Ibid., 197.
\n32. Ibid., 64.
\n33. Ibid., 130-31.
\n34. Ibid., 195.
\n35. McKnight is a member of the Emergent Village Coordinating Group. See http:\/\/ www.emergentvillage.com\/aboutinformation\/
\nemergent-village-coordinating-group.
\n36. Scot McKnight, “Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 4,” blog entry, Jesus Creed, August 8, 2006, http:\/\/www.jesuscreed.org\/?p=1319.
\n37. Brian D. McLaren, “Brian McLaren’s Inferno 2: Are We Asking the Wrong Questions about Hell?” Out of Ur, Leadership
\nJournal Blog, May 8, 2006, http:\/\/blog.christianitytoday.com\/outofur\/archives\/2006\/05\/brian_mclarens_1.html.
\n38. Brian D. McLaren, “Brian McLaren’s Inferno 3: Five Proposals for Reexamining Our Doctrine of Hell,” Out of Ur, Leadership
\nJournal Blog, May 11, 2006, http:\/\/blog.christianitytoday.com\/outofur\/archives\/2006\/05\/brian_mclarens_2.html.
\n39. Doug Pagitt, “The Emerging Church and Embodied Theology” in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, ed. Robert
\nWebber (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 138.
\n40. Ibid., 121.
\n41. Ibid., 137.
\n42. Ibid., 128.
\n43. Ibid.
\n44. Ibid., 142.
\n45. Henry Churchill King, Reconstruction in Theology (London: Macmillan, 1903).
\n46. Pagitt, 122.
\n47. Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity 1900-1950 (Louisville: Westminster John
\nKnox, 2003), 65.
\n48. Nooma is the name of a line of short teaching videos featuring Rob Bell.
\n49. Cathleen Falsani, “MaverickMinister Taps New Generation: Wheaton Grad Reaches out in Films- Is He 21st Century Billy
\nGraham?” Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 2006.
\n50. Kristen Bell, quoted in Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today 48, no. 11 (November 2004), 38,
\nhttp:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/ct\/2004\/november\/ 12.36.html.
\n51. Ibid.
\n52. Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 26.
\n53. Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
\n54. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930), 382.
\n55. Ibid., 383.
\n56. Albert Mohler, “Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth?” Commentary, AlbertMohler.com,
\nhttp:\/\/www.albertmohler.com\/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-12-25.
\n57. Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 192n143.
\n58. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 287.
\n59. Brian D. McLaren, “Brian’s Recommendations,” Brian D. McLaren, http:\/\/www.purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/?random.
\n60. Jones holds a master’s of theology degree and a PhD in theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. He is scholar in
\nresidence at Westminster Seminary in California, the director of ChristianWitness to a Pagan Planet, and has written many
\nbooks and articles on paganism.
\n61. Peter Jones, e-mail message to author, September 11, 2007.
\n62. Ibid.
\n63. Ibid.
\n64. Rob Bell, quoted in Crouch.
\n65. Ibid.
\n66. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 109.
\n67. Ibid., 264.
\n68. Brian D. McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006), 7.
\n69. Brian D. McLaren, “Emerging Values,” Leadership, July 1, 2003, 35.
\n70. Bell, Velvet Elvis, 62.
\n71. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 171.
\n72. Brian D. McLaren, “Dorothy on Leadership,” Rev!, November\/December 2000,
\nhttp:\/\/www.brianmclaren.net\/emc\/archives\/imported\/dorothy-on-leadership.html.
\n73. See Seeds of Compassion, “InterSpiritual Day,” http:\/\/www.seedsofcompassion.org\/ involved\/interreligious_day.asp.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE PO Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Feature Article: JAE450 NAVIGATING THE EMERGING CHURCH HIGHWAY by Mark Driscoll This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 4 (2008). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http:\/\/www.equip.org SYNOPSIS Wading through the entire emerging church…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"twitterCardType":"","cardImageID":0,"cardImage":"","cardTitle":"","cardDesc":"","cardImageAlt":"","cardPlayer":"","cardPlayerWidth":0,"cardPlayerHeight":0,"cardPlayerStream":"","cardPlayerCodec":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}