A Fundamentalists Guide to the Emerging Church Movement, Part 1

Pop culture finds itself enamored with different fads from season to season. Whether that fad is MC Hammer’s genie pants in the early 1990’s, or Kanye West’s shutter shades from the latter part of this previous decade. Society also tends to mimic the things that are rampantly successful, which would basically be like a fad with a little more longevity. Things like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Twilight, Avatar, Star Wars, Star Trek, are not only followed on an almost creepy level, but they have begun to be copied by other companies hoping to cash in on the successful trends of the past. It is definitely not a secret that corporations tend to link themselves to items that popular either due to the fleeting “cool factor” or the rampant success of other companies.
Evangelicalism, in many ways is no different. It still finds itself fascinated with different movements from age to age, some with long-term and widespread success and others that could best be described as a flash in the pan (with either limited or regional success). These trends in the evangelical culture tend to fall into one of two distinct categories, the first that is likely to be copied is by following a churches methodology, such as recreating the atmospheres found in a church like Lakewood (Joel Osteen) or Saddleback (Rick Warren) to attract more visitors, and the other, which is far more dangerous, is copying the message of the surrounding culture such as addressing the feared failing of the church in the face of modernism (Modernism is the philosophy that says that truth can only be known via scientific means, thus denying the supernatural aspects of the scriptures) by instituting the social gospel and shying away from the true, supernatural gospel of Jesus Christ (gty.org).
The newest trend for the evangelical community to latch onto is that of the Emerging Church. Unfortunately this has led to much confusion as the emerging church has some positive elements, but there are some dangerous parts to contend with as well. The confusion stems primarily from a lack of clear definition of the emergent church, which as Jan Markell says, “defining the EC [emergent church] is a little bit like nailing Jell-O to the wall”. There are so many different subcategories and nuances involved in the emergent church that there is almost no clear way to define it. Mark Driscoll, who is the preaching pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and also one of the pioneers of the emerging church movement, gives a clear explanation of some of the different subcategories, which he numerates as –
1. The House Church movement
2. Emerging Evangelicals
3. Emergent Church
4. Emerging Reformed
Each of these must be explained in further detail and for the sake of clarity will be compared to the traditional views of Piedmont Baptist College.
The House Church Movement is clearly the most difficult to define as there is minimal, if any data to use in quantifying the beliefs of, or even the participation in this particular organization. The house church movement is a very loosely connected that is especially dogmatic on the priesthood of every believer, to the point that they consider the idea of a paid clergyman to be unbiblical. In some ways this can be seen as an extreme reaction to High Church establishments (such as the Roman Catholic or Anglican Church) or simply a misguided effort to recreate the New Testament church. This movement cannot be fully supported due to it being in clear denial of the biblical model of paying a pastor for his work as the Apostle Paul commanded in 1st Timothy 5:17-18 when he says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, and, the laborer deserves his wages.” The apostle Paul clearly felt that clergy deserved to be paid and it would be reckless of people today to ignore that command if they have the means with which to do it.
The comparison of the House Church movement and Piedmont is, due to the lack of evidence and cohesiveness, almost impossible to accurately examine. The main difference would be the aforementioned lack of paid pastoral leadership. The overall theology of this movement may or may not be questionable, but their ecclesiology is at best skewed and at worst heretical.

In the coming posts we will address the other streams of the movement with the Emerging Evangelicals due up next.

Note: I wrote this for a class (Church Administration at Piedmont Baptist College) the day before World Magazine pronounced the movement dead.I disagree with the articles stance as it dwells more on the label than the heart of the various streams of the movement, but it is still important to note that some see this trend as less trendy and more established.