The Emergent Church (part 4)

EMERGENT MISSIONAL AGENDA

         When one understands that major doctrines are being deconstructed by emergent adherents, it stands to reason that missions will be manifested as something contrary to Scripture.  The gospel according to emergent types is not about individual conversion but rather saving the world from the problem of sin. The emergent gospel is not about seeing a person have the righteousness of God, on the basis of faith and the finished work of the cross, imputed to them.  Rob Bell says “salvation is the entire universe being brought back into harmony with its maker”.[1]  Continuing the distortion McClaren says that getting individual souls into heaven is not the focal point of the gospel, rather God is concerned with saving the whole world…stars, plants, animals, all of it.  He explains more saying “I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world.  By the world I mean planet earth”.[2]  These statements  would surely leave a student of Scripture wondering why the distorting of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:17-19) or even the statement from the lips of Jesus Himself who said “the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost (individuals).”[3]

         The missional agenda of the emergent church is all about the planet and the ecosystems; they are very “green”.  Even to the extent as seen above, that Christ died for the planet and it is the believer’s responsibility to restore and protect the planet.  This is missional to the emergent.  But not only this, the emergent is troubled with social injustices.  The question is asked by McClaren: “could our preoccupation with individual salvation from hell after death distract us from dealing with injustice in our world today?”[4]  To the emergent in general, the gospel is not about who is going to heaven but rather repairing the environment and dealing with social injustices like poverty and the aids virus.  Unfortunately this is being done in the “Kingdom” now.[5]  These are all good things, but they do not replace the truth of the gospel message which is the fact that Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh, He died, and on the third day rose again (1 Cor. 15:2-4) and that whosoever believes on Him will be saved (Rom. 10:9-10; John 3:16).  They are not wrong to be concerned with social issues and the environment, just wrong to confuse it with the truth of the gospel. 

EMERGENT HERMENEUTICS

         With many of the distortions of doctrine, the question must be answered as to how the emergents arrive where they do.  This is an issue of hermeneutics.  The emergent adherents hold to a neo-orthodox view of Scripture.  This view said that the Bible contains the Word of God but it is not the Word of God.  McClaren says that he “finds the term inerrancy useful but prefers the term inherency”.[6]  In reading many of the emergent leader’s view of Scripture, one is left wondering if there is any sense of devotion to the Bible.  Regarding this sense of devotion, Carson says “to the emergent people the Bible was never intended to be studied and analyzed; it was meant to be embraced as art, to be read as a story”.[7]  It does appear that within the emergent conversation, many hold to a low view of Scripture.  Again, Carson warns “that at some point churches must decide…to live in subjection to Scripture, or try to domesticate it”.[8] 

         The hermeneutic of the emergent church is new.   New in the sense that the normal interpretation principles are minimized if not ignored.  Words are intended to make sense and they communicate a message the writer intends to communicate.  However, when it comes to the Bible, many are not content with an historical-grammatical literal approach.  In A New Kind of Christianity, McClaren writes about a “new approach” to the Bible.[9]  Then in A Generous Orthodoxy he says “what good is an inerrant Bible without inerrant interpretation”.[10]  Mankind (including believers) is flawed by sin; however the truths of God’s Word can and must be interpreted and held to by Christians.  After all why would Timothy and every other preacher of the Bible be exhorted to “preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2) if the Bible cannot be taught with confidence?  The Bible can be rightly divided. 

         The emergent churches self-proclamation of being the post-modern church is problematic.  In that attempt the characteristics of post-modernism will be embraced and adhered to.  That includes a post-modern hermeneutic of Scripture; inevitably a hermeneutic of non-absolute. This approach to God’s Word will and has rendered it impotent in this context.  All will agree that there are no inerrant interpreters, but this does not mean that Scripture cannot be rightly understood.  The vast majority of Scripture is clear and concise.  The lack of a literal historical-grammatical approach to Scripture brings a deliberate movement away from absolute truth found in God’s Word, to a new message that is not found in the Bible.  Without the authority of the Word of God there is no church.

EMERGENT ESCHATOLOGY

         As noted above, emergent’s are utilizing a faulty hermeneutic.  This leads to the belief that the church is presently operating in the kingdom.  This embracing, by the emergent church, of errant views of the kingdom, leads inevitably to a misunderstanding of the church, which distorts the gospel message (“missional” as mentioned above).  The presentness of the Kingdom of God is one issue that most all in the emergent church are in agreement.  This is expressed quite well by Jeff and Sherry Maddox: “Our principle desire is to see God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.  We believe this happens when God’s people are renewed around God’s mission of love and justice in the world.”[11]  McClaren prolifically states that the goal of Jesus is the Kingdom of God brought earth.  This is accomplished by good works.[12]  The emergent church basically states that the kingdom of God is present now, and will be complete based on the churches good works.  Again, this is a severe misunderstanding of the role and purpose of the church in this present dispensation. 

CONCLUSION: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

         Certainly, it is irrelevant to question the sincerity to evangelize the postmodern generation by those in the emerging and emergent church.  Emergents sincerely believe the movement (conversation) is what God would have them to do. It is pointless to examine ones sincerity.  However, as has been briefly attempted to show in this paper, the emphasis and practices of the emergent church can and should be examined.  Carson suggests wisely that “whenever a Christian movement comes along that presents itself as reformist, it should not be summarily dismissed…it may have some important things to say that the rest of the Christian world needs to hear.”[13] 

         The emergent church should remind the church that we are called to confront our culture.  However this must not be done by inviting the culture to the church to dictate what it wants.  Are all emergent’s agents of hollow and deceptive philosophy?  The answer would have to be no.  But if the faithful preaching of the Word of God as the authority for the church and the believer is minimized at this juncture, in another decade the authority will be philosophy and not Scripture.  One emerging leader who did not agree with the emergent split says profoundly that “the only hope is a return to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.  The gospel must be unleashed in the world through the church for the transforming salvation of sinners and their cultures”.[14]

The church today needs the type of shepherds God promised Israel.  “Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15).  These are men who know the Word and passionately proclaim it.  And the church needs Christians who hunger and thirst for God’s truth, a people who will cry out, “Give us the Word!”[15]

It is the preaching of the Word, that God uses to draw the lost to Himself, as well as for creating and sustaining His church.  It was 2,000 years ago and it is today.

---

[1] Bell, Rob. Velvet Elvis, 109.

[2] McClaren, Brian.  A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 97.

[3] Luke 19:10; another example is the four accounts of Luke 15 in which individual things were lost and then found.

[4] Ibid., 106.

[5] Pagitt, Doug and Tony Jones.  An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 27, 29, 76, 101.  In this collection of essays the social justices being performed by emergents are being done with the distorted understanding  that the church is presently in the kingdom.

[6] McClaren, Brian.  The Last Word and the Word After That, 111.

[7] Carson, D.A.  Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church, 164.

[8] Ibid., 168.

[9] Samir Selmanovic agrees saying “every generation of those who decide to follow Jesus learns that there are Bible texts to be reinterpreted, theologies reconstructed…”  Pagitt, Doug and Tony Jones.  An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 191.

[10] McClaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy, 133.

[11] Pagitt, Doug.  An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 80.  Jeff and Sherry Maddox essay is titled “An Ever Renewed Adventure in Faith”

[12] McClaren, Brian.  A Generous Orthodoxy, 263.

[13] Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 10.

[14] Driscoll, Mark.  “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church”, Criswell Theological Review, 3.2 (2006): 87-93.

[15] Gilley, Gary.  This Little Church Stayed Home (Webster: Evangelical Press, 2006), 172.

The Emergent Church (part 3)

EMERGENT DOCTRINE

         There is no absolute truth in the emergent agenda.  Scripture is seen as mystical and not for its presentation of truth.  Carson says that the emergent movement has discounted absolutism.[1]  This explains why the sermon is not the focal point of a worship service in the emergent church.  In contrast Dan Kimball writes:

In the post modern church movement, the sermon is only part of the experience of the worship gathering.  Here the preacher teaches how the ancient wisdom applies to kingdom living; the preacher emphasizes and explains the experience of who the truth is.  The starting point is the garden of Eden and the retelling of the story of creation and the origins of human beings and of sin (Acts 17:22-34).  Biblical terms like “gospel” and “Armageddon” need to be deconstructed and redefined.[2]

The sermon appears to be adjusted to move away from proclaiming absolute truth to mere storytelling.  What are most troubling however, are the terms “deconstruct” and “redefine”. 

         Deconstruction means that a certain meaning of a word cannot be known.  Again, D.A. Carson defines it as having to do “with the literary approach that hunts down tensions and inconsistencies in the text in order to set them at odds with each other and thus deconstruct the text to generate new insights that might actually contradict what a text ostensibly says”.[3]  The practice of deconstruction by the adherents in the emergent church is troubling in the least.  A simpler definition of deconstruct, using a post-modern presupposition, would mean that words cannot be rightly interpreted.  What the original writer wrote cannot be discerned but rather the words are dependent upon the readers/listeners experience.  Deconstruction “guts words of their meanings.  Although obviously convoluted, it is a central piece in post-modern thought”,[4] and it is post-modern thought that the emergent church is embracing.

         The emergent folks need to dispose of dogmatic truth in order to rid the church of what Kimball calls “an exclusive gospel”,[5]in order to reach the culture of the hour.  Since absolute authoritative truth is being discounted, many of the doctrines need to be emptied as well.  One of those doctrines on the firing line is the doctrine of original sin of which McClaren writes: “The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog on a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it.  Instead of being God’s message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information of how to solve the pesky legal problem of original sin.”[6]  The doctrine of hell is considered an irritation (see comment below).  The Bible is very clear in announcing, not so complementary, that “all have sinned and come short of the glory” and that the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 3:23; 6:23).  Without that “pesky legal problem of sin” mankind would not be in desperate need of a Savior.  As well, without the “irritation of hell” Jesus would not have had to suffer and die.  Considering the doctrine of God, McClaren says “God can’t ever really be a subject to be studied”.[7]  If that is true, which it is not, then Jesus really did not fully exegete God in His incarnation (John 1:14).  It stands to reason that after all the doctrines of the Bible are deconstructed all that is left is a mystery, which fits nicely in post-modern philosophy.  Even McClaren oddly admits that what will be after deconstruction – “the outcome is unknown”.[8]  At this point the question of what to do with Jude 3 must be asked by the lover of Jesus. 

Beloved when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.[9]  

         Jude seems to indicate that believers are to strive for doctrinal purity and maintain the absolute truth of God’s Word.  Knowing the truth of Jude 3, it is interesting that Rob Bell, another leader in the emergent movement, in his book Velvet Elvis says that concerning God, salvation, the Bible, Jesus, and the future, “we must keep reforming”.[10]  Where does this stop?  Bell goes on to indicate that it wouldn’t bother him at all to discover we have been wrong all along concerning the faith.  In the same vein it is alright to discount the virgin birth of Christ.[11]  The shift is from doctrine to practice, which is a major component of emergent philosophy.  This is obviously problematic after looking through the New Testament, which clearly tells not to sacrifice one for the other.  It is agreed that the believer is called to live a godly life, but one must first believe and be born again (Eph. 2:8-10).  The emergent camp is emphasizing the fruits of salvation and at the same time minimizing salvation.  In Kimball’s The Emerging Church he quotes Mark Ostreicher, the president of Youth Specialties.[12]  He almost denies the gospel saying “does a little Buddhism thrown into a belief system somehow kill off the Christian part?  My Buddhist cousin…is a better Christian than most Christians I know”.[13]  

         Obviously it would be unfair to say that every emergent leader has thrown doctrine out the window.  But for “the most part orthodoxy as a set of immovable theological assertions is largely downplayed”.[14]  In the emergent churches “spirituality is hot religion is not”[15] is a great descriptor of the environment.  Ted Kluck, after attending a seminar that Tony Jones led (a leader in the emergent church) to a group of youth pastors, says that “right out of the gate Jones says that we’re not here to determine absolute truth, but we’re on a quest for a reasonable faith”.[16]  Who determines what is reasonable?  Is it Jones who says “theology is boring”?[17]  People may not like the sound of doctrine, but it is God’s chosen means for making one spiritually healthy.  It is practice that is what the emergent types are pushing and the expense of minimizing doctrine.  But there is a relationship between orthodoxy (doctrine) and orthopraxy (practice).  Doctrine without practice is absolutely dangerous.  But practice without doctrine is deadly.  The Bible commands in 1 Timothy 4:16 that all believers are to persevere in life and doctrine with an emphasis on doctrine, which rightly understood, leads the believer to right living before God.

---

[1] Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 35.  It is interesting that at the same time they do not equate this with relativism.

[2] Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church, 61.

[3] Carson. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 84.

[4] Gilley, Gary.  This Little Church Had None, 61.

[5] Kimball.  The Emerging Church, 172-175.

[6] McClaren, Brian.  The Last Word and the Word After That (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 134.  In this book he deconstructs the doctrine of hell as well.

[7] McClaren, Brian.  A New Kind of Christian, 153.

[8] McClaren, Brian.  A New Kind of Christianity, 164.

[9] It seems that the emergent movement may be flirting with heresy.

[10] Bell, Rob. Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 13.

[11] Ibid., 27.

[12] http://www.youthspecialties.com/.  What is so troubling is Youth Specialties claims to train over 100,000 youth pastors each year.

[13] Kimball, Dan.  The Emerging Church, 53.

[14] Deyoung, Kevin and Ted Kluck.  Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (Chicago: Moody, 2008), 106.

[15] Ibid., 107.

[16] Ibid., 227.

[17] Ibid., 227.

The Emergent Church (part 2)

THE MERGE OF POST-MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

         In this environment an unavoidable collision has taken place.  It is the intersecting of the post-modern who says there is no absolute truth and the Bibles claim to be absolute truth – experience against truth.  The emergent church is chasing the post-modern culture.  The seeker sensitive model (i.e. Rick Warren and Bill Hybels) was chasing the last generation.  The seeker sensitive model removed many of the traditional symbols and replaced them with slick performers and polished state-of-the-art facilities.  These traditional objects are things that the postmodern (unbeliever) wants in their religious experience.  Things like the bringing back of hymns and relics in the church.

         The emergent church has come on the scene in a church age which allows itself to be defined by its culture and not Scripture.  Through a change in method and message the emergent church is chasing down the culture.  D.A. Carson recalls that the Reformation began out of a conviction that the Roman Catholic Church had departed from Scripture and was introducing false theology.  They felt that the church needed to be reformed by the Word of God.  He goes on to say that the emergent reformation thinks that due to the major post-modern cultural shift the church must shift as well.[1] 

         This does not necessarily mean that the emergent movement is wrong.  It does mean, however, the movement needs to be assessed and evaluated.  Emergent leaders claim that changing times demand that fresh questions be asked of Scripture.  In a New Kind of Christianity, McClaren says “my quest for a new kind of Christianity has required me to ask some hard questions about the Bible.  There will be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible”.[2]  The collision between post modern philosophy and biblical theology occurs as the emergent church chases their culture, a culture which says they want religious experience and feelings, not propositional truth.  Post-moderns are not interested in theology but rather are attracted to the mystical; an experience.  Emergent leaders believe that McClaren’s “new Christianity” is the answer. 

         In looking for a gateway into reaching the post-modern culture, Dan Kimball quotes an unbeliever: “if you can’t go to church, and at least for a moment be given transcendence, if you can’t for a moment pass briefly from this life to the next, I don’t see why anyone would want to go (to church).  Just a brief moment of transcendence causes you to come out of church a changed person.”[3]  The unfortunate thing is that Kimball, a leader in the emergent movement, is fine with that concept of transcendence.  That statement is problematic and illustrates the emphasis on experience against the truth of true biblical transformation.

         If one types “emergent church” into a search engine numerous web pages will be found (Google said 230,000).  Several of these sites will tell the reader that worship should be a holistic and mystical experience.  Many advocate the use of candles, images, stained glass, and even darkness is what promotes spirituality.  One emergent leader uses the acrostic EPIC to describe the emergent church: experiential; participatory; image-rich; connective.[4]  The emphasis in emergent churches is on the mystical (experiential) which in a sense foster unity (not a biblical model), as opposed to doctrinal propositional truth that uncompromisingly divides.

         With the merge of post-modern philosophy and biblical theology is an unavoidable collision between experience and truth, which ultimately will lead to the eradicating of objective truth.  The emergent movement is striving for ecumenical goals much like the seeker sensitive models.  Brian McClaren praises those who are seeking unity between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics[5].  This explains why he wrote in his book A New Kind of Christian that “the Bible should not be regarded as authoritative or infallible”.[6]  The message in the emergent church is image-driven as opposed to Scripture-driven.  This can only contribute to a lack of discernment, which is already spreading like wild-fire as many churches are embracing these culture-driven methods and do not  realize it.  The emergent church has an apparent contempt for propositional truth.  Christology, according to the research of this writer, is the only doctrine the emergent movement unifies around.  This Christ, however, is solely Savior and obedience to Him is optional.[7]

---

[1] Carson, D.A.  Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 42.

[2] McClaren, Brian.  A New Kind of Christianity (New York: Harper, 2010), 68.

[3] Kimball, Dan.  The Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 143.

[4] Sweet, Leonard. “A Spiritual Exegesis of Y2K”  http://www.leonardsweet.com/article_details.php?id=19. (Accessed 18 June 2010).

[5] It should be noted that just three decades ago Protestants put much effort in evangelizing Roman Catholics which are now considered Christians on the same level.

[6] McClaren, Brian D. A New Kind of Christian, 53.

[7] Crouch, Andy. “The Emergent Mystique”.  Christianity Today (November 2004), 38-41.  In this article, Crouch quotes Rob and Kristen Bell.  They said that they used to think they knew what the Bible means and now they have no idea what it means; now life is big again.  We have rediscovered the Bible as a human product…life is no longer black and white it is in color.

The Emergent Church (Part 1)

The Emergent Church Movement: Experience Against Truth

         The human body is equipped to keep dead and poisonous matter out of the stream of life in the body.  Using this illustration, A.W. Tozer described the healthy soul.  He said, “The red corpuscles are like faith; they carry the life giving oxygen to every part of the body.  The white cells are like discernment; they jump on toxic matter and carry it out for disposal.”[1]  There are several points to Tozer’s illustration: 1) dead or dying churches do not have the ability to discern the spirit of truth from error; 2) if the poison cannot be detected it cannot be removed; 3) failure to use discernment and removing poisons will allow continued circulation, “which will result in confusion among believers.  The vitality of the church depends upon its members and leaders exercising discernment to earnestly contend for the faith”.[2]  The church of the twenty first century is inundated with those seeking new methods and means of church growth.  However, in the Bible, it is primarily the preaching of the Word, which God uses to draw the lost to Himself, as well as for creating and sustaining His church.

         Christian fads and trends appear and disappear.  Many pastors and church leaders search to be relevant in their culture. With good intentions they are seeking to be obedient to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.  In this search new trends and methods are sought in order to grow their church.  One of those trends that were born with good intentions is the Emergent Church movement.  Just in the past few years it has at its back a strong tail wind.  The Emergent Church splintered off the Emerging Church movement which, again, was started with all good motives.  Although the two are used interchangeably in many contexts, this paper will engage and be more critical toward the Emergent Church.

ROOTS AND BEGINNING

         For the last two thousand years the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, unfortunately, has been impacted, however subtly, by its surrounding culture.  The Bible records in Acts chapter 17 that the Apostle Paul did not shrink from preaching the gospel message (foolish to the hearers) to a group of pluralistic scoffers at Mars Hill and neither should the church.  Paul also dealt with those who were attempting to blend grace and works in the letter to the churches of Galatia.  Right out of the gate, the church has had culture banging at its door.  After the efforts of the apostles the church continued to cope with constant persecution.  The Roman Empire under Nero and Domitian was extremely hostile toward Christians.  During this time that the church was under intense persecution, the influence of the culture was not felt.  In 325 A.D. Constantine became emperor and later converted to Christianity.  The negative impact is still felt today.

         From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance many developments in the church came about including roots of liberalism from the impact of the culture on the church.  From this period came the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods.  Clear theological systems and a dedication to the authority of Scripture were developed.  Then there came the modern period to include the Enlightenment.  Jonathan Hill says that “the rise of modern science raised issues on a hitherto unprecedented scale”.[3]  It was the scientific and philosophical advances that the Enlightenment grew out of.  Like the Renaissance “the Enlightenment was an all-encompassing trend of thought that is very hard to define…and is still going on”.[4]  The desire to change for the culture is definitely here.  For example Friedrich Schleiermacher, a liberal of this time talked of “re-explaining Christianity for its cultural despisers”.[5]

         The Enlightenment helped set the stage for liberal Protestantism of the twentieth century.  Schleiermacher’s emphasis on “human feeling and the need to relate the Christian faith to the human situation”[6] opened many doors and appears to reign even today.  It is this incorrect thinking that impacts the church steeped in the post-modern environment.  Opposition toward God’s chosen methods for growing and maturing His church, and fulfilling the Great Commission, “have resulted in a confused cultural shift”.[7]

         The characteristic of this cultural shift that is most concerning is that a church model (or movement/trend) is available for every point of view.  In 2001, for example, Robert Lewis emphasized social service as a model for the church.  He states that prayer, biblical preaching, and sound doctrine are inadequate to impact the culture.[8]  This philosophy places the emphasis on social reform and special projects that would encourage relationships.  There is nothing wrong with local missions if the name of Jesus Christ is proclaimed as the reason for the service.  In this church model the gospel is not proclaimed because it embraces an ecumenical agenda.[9]  The multiple denominations that are embraced do not agree on the essence of the gospel, to the neglect of doctrinal distinctive.

         There is always something else if that does not fit ones personality.  For instance, there is the “Purpose Driven Model” of Rick Warren.  Here there is a combination of business techniques, psychology, and even a little theology.  The purpose-driven model borrows humanistic terminology such as “felt-needs” and feels the same about biblical preaching and sound doctrine as the “church of irresistible influence”.  These concepts are very troubling in contrast to the Bible records which tell of tremendous substantial growth by praying, preaching, and holding to sound doctrine (throughout the book of Acts). 

         The most recent example of the cultural shift from biblical doctrine and propositional truth is the movement (defined as a conversation[10]) led by Brian McClaren.  Where the purpose-driven model was the latest trend, today it is the Emergent church.  At the heart of this movement (or conversation) lays “the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is emerging”.[11]  Although the roots of the emerging/emergent church go way back in church history, its beginning can be traced back to the late 90’s.  To be more precise, the likes of Dan Kimball, Sally Morgenthaler, Samir Selmanovic, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones speak of their conversations starting in 1998 at a meeting in San Diego.[12]  In many ways though, the emergent church can trace its birth to the publication of Brian McClaren’s A New Kind of Christian in 2001.  He writes in this book that “right now emergent is a conversation, not a movement.  We don’t have a program.  We don’t have a model.  I think we must begin as a conversation, then grow as a friendship, and see if a movement comes of it.”[13] Defining the emergent/post-modern church is very problematic with its absence of doctrinal statements and official leaders.  However, through the writings of many who claim to be a part of this movement/conversation, the emergent church can be defined.

---

[1] As quoted by Mike Grendon, “The Death of Discernment in the Church,” Proclaiming the Gospel Newsletter 14 (July-August 2005): 1.

[2] Barton, Mike. “A Discerning Ear”  Light for Life 13 (March-April 2002).

[3] Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 217.

[4] Ibid., 217.

[5] Ibid., 225.

[6] McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Malden: Blackwell, 1998), 226.

[7] Gilley, Gary E.  This Little Church Had None: A Church in Search of the Truth (England: EPBooks, 2009), 13.

[8] Lewis, Robert.  The Church of Irresistible Influence (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 24.

[9] Ibid., 24. Lewis stated that one should not proclaim the gospel when doing mission work.

[10] Carson, D.A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 12.

[11] Ibid., 12.

[12] Pagitt, Doug and Tony Jones.  An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).  This book contains essays from various leaders within the movement.  The 1998 date is mentioned by the above consistently.

[13] McClaren, Brian.  A New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 20.