A
Ahimsa
Guest
4 Lanes of the Emerging Church.
- Status
The_Reginator
Active member
There is no mention of the Church that Jesus Christ instituted in this entire talk.
These folk are really floundering at times. Good thing the Catholic Church gave them the bible as a guide. But how do they expect to be able to interpret it?
I feel that we need to pray for our protestant brothers more than we do.
These folk are really floundering at times. Good thing the Catholic Church gave them the bible as a guide. But how do they expect to be able to interpret it?
I feel that we need to pray for our protestant brothers more than we do.
C
cecilia97
Guest
Thanks for posting this. I have dear friends who are big fans of Driscoll and were involved in the emergent movement for a while. The distinctions between these groups are hard for us Catholics to understand, partly because we’ve never heard of most of the thinkers that Driscoll cites in his explanation of them. It’s like having to look up words in a dictionary definition of another word. But this helps me get a slightly better understanding of where my friends are coming from.
C
cecilia97
Guest
I would say that, too, except I have learned that’s what Driscoll means when he briefly says “Acts 29” church in this clip. But you’re right…it saddens me that honest Christians with such strong faith are searching for the Church that has been right in front of them since the beginning, but they cannot see it (for many reasons, many not their fault).
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Here are some key players of each of the four lanes:
Emerging Evangelicals (keep traditional doctrine; make Christianity ‘more relevant’): Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz); Dan Kimball
House Church Evangelicals (keep traditional doctrine; keep ‘church’ small and intimate): Neil Cole (Organic Church)
Emerging Reformers (keep traditional doctrine; charismatic Calvinists): Mark Driscoll (Religion Saves: And Nine Other Misconceptions); Matt Chandler
Emerging Liberals (questioning traditional doctrine on incarnation, sexuality, salvation): Brian McLaren; Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing)
I
Izdaari
Guest
Thanks, Ahimsa! Very good explanation by Driscoll, one of my favorite Christian speakers. 
In Driscoll’s terms, I would be a Lane 1 person, an “Emerging Evangelical”. Not purely though; there are areas where I agree more with Lanes 3 and 4.
In Driscoll’s terms, I would be a Lane 1 person, an “Emerging Evangelical”. Not purely though; there are areas where I agree more with Lanes 3 and 4.
L
losh14
Guest
I think it’s more complex than the four lanes but it makes sense to try to classify them. Underlying each of these is a distinct method, a how of evangelization. I have friends (fraternity brothers, actually) who are nominally Presbyterian (PCA) but working on planting churches in the middle of the city with a focus on urban renewal. Not so much social justice (ie, neighborhood organizing, house to house social work, etc) but rather changing the mental environment of that part of the city. It’s a little distinct from the approach of our parish, which has been to support intentional communities in the cities and work directly with residents, but both bring a presence into the city and bring the city into the congregation.
C
Contarini
Guest
Aren’t there any “emerging Catholics”? In other words, aren’t a lot of emergent folks interested in returning to some pre-Reformation ideas and practices?Thanks, Ahimsa! Very good explanation by Driscoll, one of my favorite Christian speakers.
In Driscoll’s terms, I would be a Lane 1 person, an “Emerging Evangelical”. Not purely though; there are areas where I agree more with Lanes 3 and 4.
And the problem with the last category (both with the way it’s constructed and perhaps with the folks in it) is that Protestants confuse traditional *Christian *doctrine, traditional Western Christian doctrine, and traditional Protestant doctrine. Questioning penal substitution, for instance, is arguably a very traditional thing to do–but of course McLaren may not see it that way himself and seems to associate it with other ideas that are genuinely liberal.
C
cecilia97
Guest
Emergent and Catholic seem to be mutually exclusive terms to me. From my POV, the Church IS the community that the “emergent” movement is trying to get back to…with one difference: Catholicism does not place a high value on being modern and “relevant”. The Catholic understanding is that the person should change to fit the Church, not the other way around. Plus, our worship “style” is more fixed because, frankly, we believe it was instituted by Christ and shouldn’t be messed around with. Now, there are priests who don’t follow the rubrics, but they’re in the wrong according to Church authority…they’re stepping out on their own, so to speak.
That’s my take on it.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
I’m really sick of Driscoll. My girlfriend goes to a video satellite of his church and I occasionally attend with her. These people, for all the talk they give about helping “other” Christians, they really think that they’re the only ones who’ve got any portion of the Holy Spirit. Every time they have baptism, it’s almost always anabaptisms. While there is a lot of good that goes on there and I see a lot of people changed for the better, and while Mark is a fantastic speaker who is orthodox 95% of the time, I’m just incredibly sick of the other 5%.
I really should be more charitable, but the man knows nothing of his birth religion. He thinks we believe that Mary was conceived virginally.
I really should be more charitable, but the man knows nothing of his birth religion. He thinks we believe that Mary was conceived virginally.
C
cecilia97
Guest
:hug1: Oh, if I had a nickle for every time my friends have told me “well, Mark Driscoll said that’s what Catholics believe and he should know, he grew up Catholic!”. Ugh.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
The last time I went to Mars Hill, Mark quoted the Council of Chalcedon, and St. Augustine.:hug1: Oh, if I had a nickle for every time my friends have told me “well, Mark Driscoll said that’s what Catholics believe and he should know, he grew up Catholic!”. Ugh.
Why do they do that? Don’t they realize that St. Augustine and Chalcedon were as Catholic as anything?
I
Izdaari
Guest
Well, why not? Is there some reason a Protestant shouldn’t quote a known Catholic? I hope not, because I’m likely to quote Chesterton or Tolkien at any time. Or St. Patrick, or St. Francis, or Aquinas, etc…
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
Yes, there is.
Because he was citing them as evidence of early christian belief. To cite tradition to support one orthodox doctrine (the hypostatic union and necessity of grace) means that you are inconsistent if you deny other things (the Real Presence, the Authority of the Pope_.
L
loneviking
Guest
No, it doesn’t mean that, and that’s probably very hard for Catholics to understand. Protestants don’t believe that the writings (oral traditions) are just as inspired and authorative as the Scriptures. What Evangelicals (and often other Protestants do) is take what the Bible says, and then see how the early church applied/used/taught those verses. But, Evangelicals don’t feel bound to agree with the early church, nor do they feel bound to follow their example. I know that sounds confusing, but it goes back to the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’, as it is interpreted and understood by Evangelicals.
L
loneviking
Guest
Interesting video and characterization of the ‘Emerging Church’. Lane 4 is really the problem lane and the churches there seem to be growing faster than the other lanes. Lane 4, IMO, comes about from a couple of things:
The H/C approach says 'wait a minute, the word there is ‘almah’ or ‘young woman’. Virgin was never meant, that’s a gloss that was put in by the later Christian church. So, you have the NIV and other translations using ‘young woman’ instead of virgin. The problem is that this is a superficial approach to Scripture that doesn’t go deeply enough into the cultural meaning of words. ‘Almah’ means young woman, but culturally it referred to a young woman who is a virgin. Married women had another term, and there weren’t young woman–non virgins–and not married.
This isn’t so much of a problem for Catholics as you have and use the writings of the church fathers. So, if the Bible doesn’t say ‘virgin’, you have the oral traditions that teach it.
The emergent church folks don’t have that oral tradition. Many of the folks worshipping in these congregations have never read the church fathers. As a result, they don’t have any other authority to counteract these false teachings. That’s how lane 4 is getting off track, and the growth is coming about as the H/C method looks to be really intellectual and relevent to the modern culture. Everybody knows that a virgin can’t conceive, so lets get rid of that idea as it’s not a critical component to Christianity and let’s concentrate on what’s important…which is a social gospel of justice and reaching to the poor.
- The Historical-Critical approach to Scripture, along with
- Modern translations that tend to use this approach like the NIV.
The H/C approach says 'wait a minute, the word there is ‘almah’ or ‘young woman’. Virgin was never meant, that’s a gloss that was put in by the later Christian church. So, you have the NIV and other translations using ‘young woman’ instead of virgin. The problem is that this is a superficial approach to Scripture that doesn’t go deeply enough into the cultural meaning of words. ‘Almah’ means young woman, but culturally it referred to a young woman who is a virgin. Married women had another term, and there weren’t young woman–non virgins–and not married.
This isn’t so much of a problem for Catholics as you have and use the writings of the church fathers. So, if the Bible doesn’t say ‘virgin’, you have the oral traditions that teach it.
The emergent church folks don’t have that oral tradition. Many of the folks worshipping in these congregations have never read the church fathers. As a result, they don’t have any other authority to counteract these false teachings. That’s how lane 4 is getting off track, and the growth is coming about as the H/C method looks to be really intellectual and relevent to the modern culture. Everybody knows that a virgin can’t conceive, so lets get rid of that idea as it’s not a critical component to Christianity and let’s concentrate on what’s important…which is a social gospel of justice and reaching to the poor.
L
losh14
Guest
Quoting doesn’t mean understanding. This is why it’s called Bible Study, not Bible Quotes. You could take the Westminster Confession completely errantly by simply quoting it if you dont’ understand the purpose and intent behind it.
C
CDNowak
Guest
I wonder where New Monasticism would fit on this? This is where there is a corresponding Catholic movement to the emergent movement.Thanks, Ahimsa! Very good explanation by Driscoll, one of my favorite Christian speakers.
In Driscoll’s terms, I would be a Lane 1 person, an “Emerging Evangelical”. Not purely though; there are areas where I agree more with Lanes 3 and 4.
L
losh14
Guest
Have I said today that I love the Lutherans? One day we’ll be worshipping under the same roof. It makes such a profound difference appreciating Christianity for its historical meaning and for the context of its development, and its really refreshing to get a Protestant perspective that isn’t self-focused.
I think there’s some vanity in this approach - the idea of taking Scripture as being more relevant to modern believers than to the source audience. This is where I think some of the Restorationist movements go astray - especially when coupled with the assumption that this group uniquely achieves salvation. Hence you get Millerites interpreting Scripture to prophesy about themselves contemporarily.
It’s also odd that the H/C, as you write, takes Isaiah to indicate ‘young woman’ (in the context of flowers blooming in the desert and other miraculous happenings) while Mary herself says “How can this be, for I’ve never known a man?”
The social justice is important, but so is the doctrine. I watched a couple of his other videos and it was interesting to see him explain that women shouldnt’ ask men out because they’ll be chasing their husbands all their lives as well, but rather women should tell me to ask them out. It’s an old understanding of courtship, and without explicit Biblical explanation I can only think that this reflects the pastor’s cultural bias (much like Hal Lindsay’s eschatological focus upon Russia reflects his own bias against communism).
I don’t mind the NIV but when I use it in study it’s along with a TEV, an NAB, an RSV or an NKJV (to help with referencing the Strong’s).
Also, there’s some merit to be taken from the duality of words. Consider the literary meaning of the Savior being born of a young woman (who is also a virgin) while the children of Abraham were born of an old woman, Sarah.
These four emergent churches would decry oral tradition as they have the written. Who has final authority is another matter that each decides for their own (hence why there are two separate - and competing - Mars Hill Churches, the pastor of each taking digs on the other).
I shudder to reject what is ‘unimportant’. It’s one thing to differ on the practice of spirituality - I tried but never really felt a strong draw to Marian veneration though I do feel strongly towards the Spirit, and I practice a form of the Hours. Its another to reject doctrines. If Jesus is not born of a Virgin then how do we demonstrate his fully Divine, fully Human nature - and what ramifications does that entail for our own sanctification?
I’ve friends who pastor an emergent church downtown (nominally Presbyterian in doctrine) and while I will give them great credit to ministering to the urban neighborhoods as an organizing and uplifting force, they give far too easily in our debates and are more than willing to bend to relativism.
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
We don’t believe that the writings of the ECF’s are inspired like the Scriptures, but we do believe that the oral traditions which they contain are, as is supported by scripture (see 2 Thess. 2:15)
The Catholic Church is called the Catholic Church because she affirms that which the consensus of the Fathers affirms. Her doctrine is according to the whole - not according to someone’s interpretation of the Bible alone.
The issue with Evangelicals is that they quote the Fathers sparingly, and if they read the whole of the Fathers’ teachings, they’d realize that the Fathers taught according to the whole.
- Status