Why I'm Not Emergent (by a guy who should be)

I have a big passion for being involved in anything new or revolutionary. My lifelong goal is be some one who starts ministries, spread ideas and makes people think in a constructive way. With this composure, I was naturally drawn to one such new and revolutionary movement in the Christian body.



This was a movement which like the puritans, of times past, seemed to desire to strip Christianity to the bare bones; to ask the question, "is the way we do church really the only or even the best way?". It engaged with culture actively and produced books and video resource which didn't smack of the typical Christian cheesiness.



I entered this world through the eyes of hip, bespectabled pastor, Rob Bell and his book, Velvet Elvis. Rob, the cool geek, used interesting metaphors and introduced new information from rabbinic teachings which made him sound smart (and me sound smart when I quoted him). He offered a simple reading of the scriptures with an air of enthusiasm and hope: we can make this world better.



Next came the videos, a library of not just one, not just a few, but an ever growing library of short teachings which could serve as discussion starters or just get one thinking. They looked brilliant. (I for one love the cute voice that says "noo-ma" at the beginning.)They were shorter then the usual 50min sermon at only 9-15 minutes (although they didn't hold my attention for the whole time, I remembered tidbits). Each one handled a topic and while not quite answering the questions, they inspired you to think and consider a possibility. They were a wonderful half-way house between Jesus, Dr. Phil and the social-networking generation.



I got more and more engrossed in the revolution through podcasts of Mr.Bell and Mr. McManus (Erwin Raphael). I loved the little gems of inspiration and scriptural self-help. I loved the rabbinic trivia and the "you thought it meant this, but it really means this" moments. I did for a while anyway.



All this time, I'd had to quiet the voice that noticed the illogicalness and borderline heresies and just tell myself that "that's OK, remember it's only a spring, not a wall; I'm sure the rest of his stuff is still good". Ironically, it was around the time that I saw Rob Bell live and even shook his hands that the mental house of cards fell for me. I did some research, read some stuff, reread some stuff, thought about stuff and finally saw that I just didn't need this revolution, which is generally know as the emerging or emergent church. I wish it could define more but it's after midnight and it's hard enough to explain even when I'm fully awake.



This week I've been reading this book.

It's one of the best books available on the movement and unlike similar books (such as the one by D.A. Carson) it's by a couple of guys who fit the typical demographic of a emergent pastor). It's very good and much more balanced then the title may suggest.

My next post will be related to this one and be about what I feel is negotiable in Christianity and what isn't. I'm much too tired to write that now.

Reinterpretation

I was listening yesterday to a podcast of a sermon from Rob Bell's church, Mars Hill in Michigan. I used to listen to these podcasts regularly but stopped after I made a conscious effort to move away from the emergent church movement, which I feel often misrepresents the Gospel.

However, after talking to one of the teens I work with and explaining that I didn't listen to them anymore (he does), he asked why. I honestly didn't have a good answer and so I decided to give them another chance.

The first podcast that  came to wasn't by Rob Bell himself, which was refreshing. The sermon by Kent Dobson ,was on the "Naked Bloody Guy" of Mark 5:1-20. This is a familiar story of a man who had been possessed by a multitude of demons, the encounter he has with Jesus and his freedom from that.

What frustrated me constantly in the course of this sermon was that Dobson seemed to be overly concerned with suggesting new interpretations for every aspect of the story. Many of these were a stretch and seemed to be based on massive assumptions.


In a story of demon possession, Dobson completely underplays the supernatural aspect and tries to reinterpret the story as a statement about the colonial oppresion of Rome. Thus when the demon replies to the question, "what is your name?" with the phrase "My name is Legion for we are many", the man is making a political statement about the military might of Rome and his forced isolation.


Eventually, the application of the sermon, based on Jesus' command to this man, was that it is our responsibility to share the story of what Jesus has done for us and the mercy he has shown us. Good application. Good point. Why though, was it necessary to focus on the military oppression of Rome which you have to dig and and add to the story to even find there?

This reinterpretation seems to a common feature in the teaching of emergent preaching, particularly in my experience in the teaching of Rob Bell. Almost every sermon I hear from him has a moment of 'you may think it means this, but I know it really means this'. In fact, at least in my group, I think this added a lot to his appeal. However, I think this obsession with new understandings moves the sermon away from the truth of scripture. If someone interprets scripture based on whatever new information he chooses, he can make it say almost anything. I believe for the most part, the best guide for reading scripture is itself.

Definitely, it's more then beneficial to be culturally aware of the original setting but come on; first look at what the passage itself says.