Here's a critique of the emerging church that's becoming fairly standard... that is to say, it's not real well informed. I think that these folks, though they have a well-intentioned zeal for God and the Gospel, should spend some time in an actual emerging church-type community (not the Willowback/emergent-esque "alternative service" types) . If they did, I can't imagine they would be able to make charges like these with a straight face.

So, here's the rap against us (I will respond in terms of our experience as a community):

1 It connects but does not critique.

The Christian view of culture is that there is no wholly sanctified culture and no wholly depraved culture. There are elements of goodness in all, and also elements that are wrong. But the emerging church hardly critiques the culture; it only criticises us! Its atmosphere is overwhelmingly laid back and acceptant. You can sit in the corner of the pub-cum-church and have a wee conversation during the time while the man at the front is speaking - and that is considered 'cool!' They criticise the 'formal' and 'authoritarian' nature of 'traditional churches' but they rarely lock horns with our culture. How different were the prophets of God like Amos, and Jeremiah, Paul, and Jesus himself who all urged people to turn from their sins.



We critique culture quite a bit. Just with a little less emphasis on the aspects of culture that folks like say, James Dobson spend a lot of time critiqueing and more emphasis on the aspects of culture (like rampant consumerism, neglect of the poor, being "pro-life" in some areas but not in others) that the church here in America seems to miss. We talk about culture and critique it quit often. In terms of our critique of the Church... yes. That is an element. But less and less so, I think. As we move through the adolescent stage of "emerging" and into something a bit more mature, the rants against the church grow fewer and further between.

I also love how this one moves from talking about critiques of culture to complaining about the ec being too laid back.

And yes, we do meet in a pub.


2. It does not face the concept of sin.

One rarely comes across personal sin in emerging church. Steve Chalke is interviewed by Mclaren and they both agree that Jesus' message is the Kingdom of God and not trusting in Christ's death for salvation. 'Original goodness as well as original sin need to be emphasised,' they say. The mood of the church is not the courtroom needing a verdict but the pub having a chat. No it is not. Nail the sinner to the wall. "Are you going to leave this place tonight with or without Christ?" This 'Christianity' is not even liberalism. The plot line of the Bible is redemption accomplished and applied. That ought to produce electricity and radicalism.



Here's where a lot of the criticism of the emerging church falls down. "Brian McLaren (or some other writer)=The Emerging Church."

While I find that Brian's writings have influence, they are not the creedal statements of the emerging church movement. To critique Brian McLaren's theology is NOT to critique the emerging church. The two are not synonymous. There's a world of difference between the writings of one man and the praxis of a whole group of communities spread over continents.

We talk about sin a lot. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many in our comunity wish we'd talk a little less about sin. Here's the thing- when you walk through Scripture, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, as we try to do, you hit the concept of sin. Now what you do with it is another matter. No, we will not be nailing any sinners against any walls. We won't be throwing rocks at them, either, as I suspect would be the next suggestion.

We're trying hard when we hit the concept of sin in Scripture to take Jesus' tack- "I don't condemn you either. Go and sin no more."

3. It denies the glory of the church.

But Christ loves his church; the groom adores her, and she is presented as a beautiful bride to her husband, and in the end the Saviour says Wow! What a beautiful church! He loves his people and we love them and him.



Hmm... not much evidence given here. I think we actually take "Church" more seriously than most. When we say "community," we actually mean it. We've raised the bar on what it means to be a part of a church community, not lowered it. Simply because we meet in non-traditional spaces doesn't mean we have no respect for the concept of Church. It just means that we recognize that those we want to fold into our community and introduce into relationship with God are loathe to walk into those buildings, so we meet where they will be more comfortable. I guess we just took seriously all those Sunday School lessons where you taught us "The church is not the building!"

No, we take the Church seriously... We see it in each other and we love it. We take Church seriously enough that we refuse to do for the people the ministry they should do for themselves. We take it so seriously we're trying to break the cycle of dependence created by a professional clergy class to justify their existence. We take church so seriously we're actually trying to involve the community in the work of wrestling with the Scriptures and not allow them to be content to simply come and consume...

It looks like less... but it's actually more.


4 The Lamb is rarely seen there in the emerging church.

There is no sense of gospel wonder.

We're mezmerized by this idea of the Gospel.

And pretty much all we talk about is Jesus... (at least on Sundays, when it counts!)