The "emerging" thing can't be criticized for failing at something they didn't set out to do--i.e. plant churches.

The conversation can lead to a church planting effort, but in my experience it is something that happens more often within established faith communities.

I really struggle with Mark Driscoll for the simple reason that being prophetic (a huge imperative in the church)is more than just issuing blanket statements to random audiences utilizing sarcasm and (albeit sometimes entertaining) wit that is easily taken out of context and could be seen as bitterness and vitriol towards those who are not upholding the Reformed tradition or practicing the same "ordo saludis"-or, given the article, practicing a faulty "ordo saludis". Ecclesiology fits here, also.

I'm not sure where I land on the Emergent/missional debate, though I agree with D. Fitch that they are two very different things and Driscoll's remarks are typically generic and seem meant to do nothing more than redefine the line between the himself and the Emergent/missional folks. From all I have read and heard from Driscoll, this seems to be his highest priority.

I pray that we can, at some point, be prophetic to each other with the kind of truth in love that is desperately needed in American churches and that I struggle to find in Driscoll's speech (definitely missed it in "Vintage Jesus").

Whether it is organic, Reformed, missional, episcopal, wholistic, institutional, mega, house, et. al, isn't there a point when we stop wasting time lobbing random grenades across the "lines" between the Driscoll's and Bell's? Isn't there a point at which we hear Jesus saying, "Whoever is not against you is for you?" or Paul saying "Whether out of envy or greed or goodwill...I will rejoice that the Gospel is being preached?" (both paraphrased)

I'm tired of the polemics. I'm exhausted by the pigeon-holing, line drawing, partisan, territorial scratching matches that seem to be accomplishing little other than reminding anyone outside the church that if this is the body of Christ, the then head is schizophrenic.

Perhaps the "Declaration and Address" by Thomas Campbell written in 1809 is going to be the most cutting edge document going forward, because it dares to talk about the "unity" of those who follow Christ. That in fact may be the new mission of the church--to reconcile itself to itself.

Naivete?

I think the conversation about churches here is problematic. Studies will show there are nearly 400,000 churches in America and less than 2000 are Mega churches. The critique of the church must not be levied at the mega church but rather the thousands upon thousands of churches that are simply houses for people hoping 1957 rolls around again. The discussion must be about poor stewardship of sitting on millions of dollars worth of property for 35 people who refuse to learn the language of the culture and engage their own neighborhoods with the good news about Jesus Christ. That is some of the poorest stewardship ever.

The discussion must be about churches being so territorial that they cannot for the life of them engage in a kingdom mission so they settle for parties in the name of Jesus. The discussion must be about blending Grace and Truth without rewriting why Jesus came, what Paul meant and blaming Constantine for ruining everything.

If missional churches are not lasting for more than three years then they need to be rethought as to how they are planted, who is planting them and exactly what their mission is. If churches are not making converts in this culture then we need to ask hard questions about boldness, about methods and about not being distracted from the truth that brings grace.

One reason I think missional churches have so few converts is not because they take so much longer but because so many missional church planters are underdeveloped in some key areas and we often think passion for a mission will overcome these deficiencies. To plant a church that thrives you need several key factors. You need to have a planter that can communicate well. You need to have a planter that loves people well. You need to have a planter that leads well. You need to have a planter with smart work ethics.

Youth ministry is one of the primary places we harvest planters and it is simply become a poor training ground for some of these traits.

From what I gather, Mars Hill Seattle has significant conversion growth.

I don't think the fact that somebody heard about Jesus several years ago disqualifies them from being conversion.

Evangelism is more than telling people about Jesus. It is living like you believe it.

"I am who I am, and I do what I do, because I know Jesus, and Jesus knows me." I think the churches that are growing and gaining true converts are doing so because their preachers have the courage to be prophetic and to motivate their congregations to live radically different lives. When the world sees this, they respond. Not to the message, but to the behavior that testifies to underlying the belief.

Thought I would add to the discussion by way of a quote from Dr. John Goldingay, who reminds us that "conversion," is first and foremost that which God does amongst his people...

"In understanding the relationship of the people of God to the world, the model of "mission" dominates Christian thinking. But for most of scripture 'mission' is not the inspired model. The God-given model in
most of scripture is that God reaches the world by so blessing the people of God that the rest of the world wants to seek the same
blessing. For most of scripture the model for mission is centripetal not centrifugal. It involves the world being drawn to the people of God, not the people of God going out to the world."

We should not too quickly forget that Western Christianity has been tremendously successful at making "converts" throughout the continent of Africa, who have then gone on to engage in civil wars, genocide, and other forms of violence and oppression. Missional-emerging churches, are in my view, quite justified in their trust that the spiritual formation of their people will prove far better in terms their partnership with God in God's mission in and to the world, than an simple emphasis on making converts.

"I know Seattle is considered post-Christendom territory, but could the majority of converts at Mars Hill be coming from the remains of Christendom like many of the megachurch conversion I described above? This is certainly valid work for the Kingdom. But missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post-Christendom with no understanding of Christ whatsoever. And this kind of mission takes longer. Failure to understand the difference is why Driscoll misses the point."

I’m reminded of an old story of Billy Grahams when he was heading to his plane at the airport. A drunk man interrupted him, and said, “Hey, you, look at me, I’m one of your converts, wha’cha think of that!” to which Billy Graham replied, “You must be one of my converts, because you certainly aren’t one of Jesus’.”
You get what you seek.
Perhaps if you silly sods stopped acting like a pack of intellectual prima donnas holding court for all us institutional hoi polloi, and started acting like servants of G-d I wouldn’t be so damnably suspicious of you and your “footloose” theology.

1. Driscoll's church planting group, Acts 29, puts SIGNIFICANT emphasis on being missional... so I am not sure what his concern is when he is promoting it? That confused me a bit with the short quote you gave, but maybe the fuller context would help.

2. At a recent meeting with some MH folks, I asked the same question about their conversion rates and the answer is they have no idea. They are about to undertake a church-wide study though to find the answer.

Kind of curious that Driscoll says he's speaking as one on the inside when he's also so clear about not being one of "them."

Wow! The author of this post must have be basing all of his knowledge of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll on what he hears on The Ooze and in old-school evagelical circles.

To first off just classify Mars Hill as a megachurch, as if it is anything like Bill Hybel's or Joel Osteen's congregations is absurd. The whole idea behind why megachurches are bad is because they are often associated with the term "seeker sensitive," and I don't believe that the word sensitive can even be used in the same paragraph as Driscoll's name without causing one to shudder.

Secondly, if you were to take that quote in context, you would see that Driscoll is addressing the Emergent type churches, i.e. Solomon's Porch and Rob Bell's Mars Hill, and not at people like Ed Stetzer and his missional church planting. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, Acts 29, which is basically led by Driscoll, is all about planting missional churches, so...

Finally, I challenge you to find too many people in America who haven't heard the "old messages." America is a Christian nation. Even the majority of non-"Christians" (like Muslims, Hindus, etc.) in America are familiar with the stories because they are available everywhere. So, to criticize Driscoll for just repackaging the old stuff in a relevant way while acting like the missional people are living in huts in the middle of Montana translating Bibles and calling people to destroy their rain gods is absurd. America is Laodicea. They have some base knowledge of the Bible and have just become lukewarm to Christianity. But a base knowledge doesn't mean that they are saved or that their conversions are any less significant.

In the end this just appears to be another liberal axe to grind against Driscoll and those in his same vein who aren't willing to accept the Beret wearing, prayer labyrinth walking, candle lighting, fluff that the Emergent types are so desperate to push.

PS- Notice this guy is from a community church. It is ironic that he was posted now, isn't it?

First, the idea of "conversion" as something measurable is problematic. That may be one thing some of the emerging churches are deconstructing. Second, I think some of the emerging churches may end up being a haven for those who have been completely burnt out on crappy versions of Christianity that they have experienced elsewhere. Maybe those who are "converted" need somewhere to go when their faith falls apart.

I like how Driscoll blasts emergents for being a part of a "ridiculous conversation" when so much of what he is well known for is "ridiculous conversation" in my mind at least. The conversation about reformed theology, all of this provocative statements about Ted Haggard and his wife. All of his woman bashing and sexist stuff.

Driscoll loves to fight a strawman, he does it to be provocative and edgy. Whose purpose does it serve to blast emergents? Rather than blasting them, blast the large majority of church growth that has nothing to do with conversions. Blast the fact that most pastoral and church conferences are nothing more than marketing strategy meetings. Blast the hearts of church leaders who are expanding and converting for the purpose of a larger building, budget and audience. Pointing his gun at Emergent is worthless. Point it at every denomination, or church organization or movement.

Maybe those who are "converted" need somewhere to go when their faith falls apart.

But see, that is exactly what Driscoll was talking about. You can't just start a church as a haven for people to come complain about how religion has mistreated them over the years. The primary purpose of the church is to serve as the body of Christ in a location and fulfill the Great Commission, which includes evangelism, baptism, and discipleship. If you construct your church to be a rehab for the spiritually depressed then it will all be about what the person gets from the church and never about what they give.

Look at what is recorded in Acts. Religious people mistreated Peter and John and Paul, but you don't see them building up four walls around themselves and saying "Woe is me! Why do all other religious people besides myself suck so bad?" No. They did exactly what it says in Acts 13. They preach the Word, call people to repentance, train them in righteousness, and when times get tough, they shake the dust off their shoes and just keep on walking filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.

Too many people today want Sunday morning to be their own personal, free therapy session and don't ever want to do hard things for God.

Interesting article, I appreciate the author's efforts.

Three questions/comments.

1) The author talks about how difficult it is to develop a missional community. But then the word "organic" is used in the same sentence. One of the beauties of the organic church is not how difficult it is, but simple. I don't see how developing a complex megachurch is easier than starting an organic missional community.

2) It also seems ( from the same paragraph) that the difficulty is getting the missional community large enough to support the "planter". Is that the goal? If the goal is to get missional communities large enough to support a "planter" than I agree it's difficult. But if the goal is to incarnationally help a group of people live the gospel, does the require a paid leader?

3) The author states "The conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, may require five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense."

I'm not sure where the 3-5 year time frame came from. But it would any less time for a megachurch to reach them, than a missional community?

Todd,

Somehow I think the majority of the comments people are trying to make here are going over your head. You keep responding with answers to questions that weren't even posed.

And when you don't miss the point entirely, you seem to quickly translate multi-faceted issues into one-dimensional rants.

Why don't you try and ask for clarification, probe further, prior to shooting everyone down, assuming that everyone besides you and Driscoll is trying to create some sort of consumerist Christianity?

The questions being addressed are much more nuanced than you're giving them credit for being. And its that kind of either deliberate, or incidental, mischaracterization that leads to the setting up of strawmen.

It's too bad that there is so much attention paid to cinverts(as if we could possibly know who was really converted or not anyway).

Just preach Christ and Him crucified for sinners. Proclaim God's law, not for the sake of improving the sinner's performance, but for the sake of killing him off...and then hand over the forgiveness of sins freely, without strings attached. And administer Baptism and Holy Communion. That's it. What else needs to happen? I'll tell you what else...nothing.

Other things will happen, but it won't be because they are being goaded by the law or a set of demands from the pastor.

Then people will actually arrive at a place of rest, in Christ, and they can get the heck off the stupid religious rat wheels that keep people chasing their own spiritual tails.

For goodness sake, this article clearly indicates one of the major problems with all these types of discussion on Emerging Church, namely that everyone seems to have a different definition of what it means to be "missional".

To my mind Mars Hill is a "missional" church in so far as they look at themselves as being missionaries to their locality. Hence their reference to being Reformissional (reformed and missional).

They are not however in what is now becoming known as the "Emerging Church" movement, the same including groups such as "Emergent village".

What's the difference between Mars Hill and those in the Emerging church movement?

Principally theology. Mars Hill holds to a reformed theology (remember Reformissional - reformed and missional), whereas many Emerging churches do not even seem to hold to the basics of Evangelicalism.

Accordingly, it is not "missional" theology that Mark has an issue with, rather it is the promotion of liberalism and a departure from basic evangelical beliefs.

I understand that Mars Hill is now at about 7,000 people and is made up of approximately 40% new converts and therefore I think it is fairly clear that their holding to a reformed theology is bearing fruit.

Of course we have no comparison and accordingly I would challenge those of you commenting hereon who are involve in forms of Emerging Church and who would consider themselves to have a more open, post modern theology to give us some approximations.

I reckon most non Christians are looking for solid answers to real issues and not the type of vague nonsense espoused by many in the Emerging Church.

Darren,
I'm not quite sure what comments you think are going over my head, but I appreciate your attempt at calling me uneducated because I disagree with you. I also give kudos to your use of the Emergent rebuttal buzzwords like 'nuanced' and 'strawman.' Unfortunately you missed out on the triple-word score by being unable to put in an accusation of prooftexting, but it was a valiant effort.

That aside, maybe you should take a look at my blog where I have spent the past month dealing with the importance for Christians to focus more efforts on reaching our "post-christian" societies in America and Western Europe. I do not have any issue with churches which use new methods to engage an emerging culture. What I take issue with is not the ecclesiology so much as it is the Christology. With their unbalanced view of Christ in the incarnation versus him in his exaltation, I believe too many Emergent churches have become like the salt which has lost its saltiness. And what is worse is that it appears many among those in the Emergent Village (particularly McLaren) are even questioning the validity of a soteriology which makes faith in Christ a necessity! This is wholly unacceptable. (I'm trying to use big words so that I can speak up to your level. Hopefully I'm using them correctly)

I'm sure you disagree with what I've said here even more, but please don't let your response even further prove the earlier point. Emergents talk so much about conversation, when what they really mean is "Let's all rag on how much Christians suck and try and find ways to incite division. Oh, and don't invite the orthodox guys." Guess what? I've been screwed over by Christians and life before too. It's just something that happens. But instead of starting a church to justify my own self-pity, which I don't find anywhere in the Bible, I was convicted to just grow a pair, realize that humans are all imperfect and sinful, and that God alone is adequate for my strength and salvation. That is a message that has been clear since the first time it was presented and I don't think anybodys "new perspectives" or "secret message" can really improve upon it.

Oh, and another thing, when Jesus simply called the disciples with the words "follow me" he didn't seem to worried that they were making a "consumerist decision".

"But missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post-Christendom with no understanding of Christ whatsoever. And this kind of mission takes longer."

Jesus' ministry lasted for only three years before he ascended back into heaven and look at the number of converts in that time. He walked up to total strangers and said, "Come, follow Me", and they did! No building of relationship first. All of the relationships Jesus had with believers occured after their conversions. In fact, according to Matthew 4:17, the first word out of Jesus mouth when he began his ministry was, "Repent..."

The apostles got right out there and preached the gospel to a culture that had NEVER heard any of it. Poeple were converted on the spot. Wow!

When david Fitch talks bout "megachurches," he sounds like Barak Obama talking about "Big Oil." The strategy is to create straw men, bad guys easy to hate. Then offer a refuge from those bad churches, you know, the ones you grew up with.

All I have read from Fitch, and from some comments here, are sweeping unprovable generalizations. How does he know how long it takes for someone to convert? The Holy Spirit (remember Him?) works in peoples lives at His own pace. You may be 7 or 70 when God plucks you out of the pit. In terms of eternity, it makes no difference.

If Fitch thinks he or anyone has the power, much less the mandate, to make the Gospel relevant, he is denying the power of the Gospel, itself. He is denying the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

"Tangible Kingdom" by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay describes a missional community that has been both sustainable and seen conversion growth.

I was on staff at a megachurch for over 10 years and very familiar with the whole scene - and we planted a new church 4 years ago. I don't see the way it was described of the differences between megachurches and small churches in conversion. Whether a large or small church, when you listen to the stories of how the Spirit moved in the person life, each story is unique. The Spirit does the convicting and drawing someone to Jesus and uses all types of things, from music, to conversations, to altar calls, to Scripture etc. which happens in small churches, meduim sized or megachurches.

I can say, that as someone in the emerging church world, we unapologetically planted the new church with the full passion and prayerful hope of seeing God use us to see people who are not Christians learn about Jesus, salvation, repentance, put faith in Jesus and understand His grace and the joy of Kingdom living in this life and the life to come. Absolutely. Or we wouldn't have started a new church.

To me, if a church is missional there should be fruit of some sort and people we can share stories about who were not Christians who are now. Depending on how the Spirit works with a person, it may be one conversation, or it may take years or for some it sadly never happens. But ultimately it seems in missional churches we should see people becoming Christians who weren't Christians before. Of course this happens over seasons of ministry and seasons of missional effort not just via a planned program. But I don't feel that we should be embarrassed or dismiss the fact that the New Testament does say with numbers listed that people were saved. Of course this can be abused and numbers counted that are just "numbers" or hands raised and counted as conversions and this can be abused and distorted and stretched. But because some have abused this type of counting, doesn't mean we shouldn't still hope and pray for individuals to become Christians. I hope in missional churches there are names, faces, lives (not just numbers) that can be shared about how they put faith in Jesus.

Conversations are wonderful, but our prayer is eventually we hope their is fruit and some conversions to Jesus as a result or the Spirit using our missional efforts.

Dan Kimball

First to Darren, I am sorry that my words were so harsh. As someone who has recently accepted a call to plant churches I have a lot of emotions wrapped up in what the missiology of the church should be and am spending hours a day sifting through what is going on in this conversation currently, so when your comment about my understanding was posted I was fairly offended. That said, I should not have responded in the manner and tone which I did and I hope that my passion for getting this right (not already knowing, but striving to know) can be seen through the biting words which I mistakenly cast it in.

Secondly, I would like to thank you Kimball for his words. I fully agree with what he said and I think that his commentary is much needed on this. My main issue with the whole tone of this article and some of the discussion which followed was the idea that any church should ever be planted which is not primarily focused on making Christ known in their community and the world, a process which inevitably must be grounded in a desire to seek and save the lost, and a process which is fully in the hands of the Spirit and shouldn't be confined by arguing that post-Christian conversions are just harder, as so many of you have already noted. Though I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the doctrinal views which are arising from the Emergent types, I certainly feel that embracing a church whose ecclesiology is influenced by the postmodern/emerging culture is essential for us in doing evangelism in America in the 21st century.

Two Words:
Dan.
Kimball.

Two more words:
Thank.
You.

4 more words:
So much for stereotypes.

Sometimes when I read these posts and comments, I feel like I am back in grade school, sitting on the playground, watching children tease and nag at one another. We are just adults now, so our verbiage reeks of attempts at intellectualism.

If we peeled back the layers, perhaps we could just un-cover these conversations for what they are, a spitting match. When I read things that Mark says, I shake my head and wonder why individuals continue to promote conversations over his comments, further fueling him to make more remarks. I don’t care what side of the coin you are on, emergent, non-emergent, missional, evangelical, orthodox, conservative… you must know deep down, that comments like his don’t help anyone. He may have brilliant things to say on other topics, but name calling, nit-picking and commenting on who has (or subsequently has not) more converts seems like child’s play. That isn’t speaking the truth in love, that isn’t showing the world how Christians love one another.

But perhaps I shouldn’t bring scripture like that into this conversation, since most of this sounds like theological babble. Being a seminary graduate, I enjoy the babble sometimes, but pointing a finger and saying (in a most child-like tone) “they have no converts…na na na na na boo boo” isn’t promoting healthy discussion, love, peace or unity amongst the body of Christ.

But maybe, I am just missing the point…

Todd,

No worries. We can all get a little heated sometimes. Myself included.

Without being too longwinded let me say a couple of things:

1.) Like others have pointed out, it is a false stereotype to say that all emergent-minded Christians are just feeling sorry for themselves- and are starting churches to host pity parties. The second someone says something like that, I want to tune out. Because it says to me that a multi-dimensional issue is turning, like I said, into a one-dimensional, one-directional rant.

Is it fair to say that some emergents navel gaze? Sure... But so to do evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, mainliners, etc...

It’s a human reaction. One we should all grow through.

But in many other ways I find emergents are very engaged- in terms of the larger questions of how the love and teaching of Jesus can affect our world. When you read Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change, you don't come away thinking he's endorsing pity-parties or navel-gazing. On the contrary, it’s a call-to-action in the name of Jesus.

Lastly, while accomplishing the Great Commission should be a major focal point, so too should the ongoing growth and health of existing Christians. And if emerging churches are paying attention to how church has gone wrong in the past, and aiming to grow from those experiences, then, all the better. I simply don't think it’s fair to suggest that emergents have merely turned church and the Faith into another consumerist enterprise.

All the best, brothers and sisters.

-Darren

I and four others started a church with the grand sum total of ~20 people. We took in a lot of despirited people, but the first thing that we did was put the past "church" experiences behind us.

What we had was one person so disturbed they tried to commit suicide, failed, thank G-d, went through a long period of rehabilitation, recieved a lot of support from the small commmunity, and re-enter into a relationship with G-d and her family.
Another who never thought about G-d until on a whim came to our church turned her life over to G-d, blossomed into a beautiful new creation, and promptly died from a aneurysm.
And finally, we found out one of the ladies was having an affair for quite some time...but she had confessed to us this issue, and we helped her regain her relationship with both G-d and her husband.
All this within two years, and finally, the pastor mentally collasped, one of the elders discovered their "gayness", personal sniping amongst the leadership, recriminations of percieved or real slights...I and two others tried to hold it together but we were so beaten down by helping others and trying to put out multiple brush fires that we closed the doors after we found everyone church homes closer to their houses.
All in all, as I look back, on the basis of this "conversation" we failed as a church, but as I look at it from G-d's perspective, we did exactly what we were suppose to do: We helped a few people fall in love with G-d.

How many converts a church makes is a fools game of numbers, and if that is how you measure success then you are a fool and should resign immediately to spare everyone your inepititude.
Church is not about how many converts it has made, never has been, never will be.
It's about a people who have chosen to throw their lot, lives and all, to an unseen diety who at times seems capricious and distant...and still trust him with everything in their lives.
And for some strange reason, a lot of people find that attractive, and want that for themselves...your job as a church, whether laity or pastoral is to introduce them and do the best you can with what you have.
Don't worry, G-d will take care of the rest.

"You'll learn more from failure than you will from success."

C.K. Tygrett wrote:
"and Driscoll's remarks are typically generic and seem meant to do nothing more than redefine the line between the himself and the Emergent/missional. From all I have read and heard from Driscoll, this seems to be his highest priority."

Really? Have you listened to any of His sermons? Have you listened to any of the Acts 29 resources? Have you read any of His stuff on the Resurgence website. If you had you would know that Driscoll's highest priority is preaching Jesus, and what comes out of this is the mission God has him on which is planting churches and training men. Have you read any of His books? I think it is kind of funny that Pastor Fitch has classified Mars Hill as a mega-church and not a missional church. I think that Driscoll is aware of the Spiritual place of his congregation and if you knew anything about Seattle, God is doing something major there. A church as orthodox yet relevant as Mars Hill (Granted I speak only from one who has studied extensively and not been able to visit Mars Hill) is doing something special in a really unchurched city. Moreover, any Christian seeking to be faithful to God and do ministry in the 21st century would be wise to take a few notes from Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll.

Finally, I think that when you have the Biblical convictions Pastor Mark has you inevitably have to be harsh and distance yourselves from guys like Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. I think Pastor Mark does this with grace, humility, and yes a little sarcasm.

In His Service,

Ross Kuester (age 25)

Paul preached his gospel first to the Jew and then to the Greeks. He would enter each city and immediately go the synagogue to preach. So to, many Emergents want to "convert" Christians because what we find is that most people sitting in American churches pews do not seem to have any clue what being a Christian really is. So to those of you out there criticizing Emergent from within your church walls-- we are coming, and we seek to convert you!

Elle wrote,
Sometimes when I read these posts and comments, I feel like I am back in grade school, sitting on the playground, watching children tease and nag at one another. We are just adults now, so our verbiage reeks of attempts at intellectualism.

i felt the same way - but when i was reading driscoll's words, and not the comments that followed. a large group of reformed and calvinist types are quite wrapped up in their own "intellectualism," and driscoll's words reeked of it.

i was reading the first nine chapters of acts the last two days ... it is a Christian scene so far from American thinking that one wonders if we worship the same God. and, yes, there are mentions of "converts," but what's most convicting is what these people did after conversion.

mr. driscoll should demand that his congregations sell everything they have and start "sharing all things and having all things in common." he could even start with his long list of staff pastors. pick a couple of them to manager giving to anyone who had need. then he could see how many "real" converts his church has.

stop all this endless judging and the apparent (self-centered) needs to talk about all the people you need to "distance yourself from." the conversion is God's work - and i'd wager the Holy Spirit can use bad sermons just as well as good ones to do this work.

Someone said, "all men will know you are my disciples by the love you have for one another."

perhaps that's the cliff notes version of American evangelical Christianity's problems...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Yes.
Thank God for Mars Hill.
I mean, there weren't any other churches in the Seattle area doing anything.

Seriously. What was Seattle doing until God decided to finally give them the true Gospel at the founding of Mars Hill?

Gimme a break.

For the record, not all "mega-churches" are "seeker sensitive".

It just refers to a minority segment of churches that have massive attendance figures.

I love the hair splitting.
Could it be, just maybe, that Mars Hill is a "missional megachurch"?
We'll have to let Willow Creek know that all their outreach and community service over the last 30 years doesn't mean anything anymore.

Apparently their only a "megachurch".

On a good day this thread could be characterized as "silly". Any other day (which is most), well...I couldn't say. UrL has a policy of filtering comments.

Sheeesh.

stop all this endless judging and the apparent (self-centered) needs to talk about all the people you need to "distance yourself from." the conversion is God's work - and i'd wager the Holy Spirit can use bad sermons just as well as good ones to do this work.

Mike, I was wondering how many of Driscoll's sermons you have actually listened to? He is certainly the furthest person from saying to "distance yourself from" anything other than false teachings. In their ecclesiology Mars Hill is not much different from many other Emergent type churches (save the candles and prayer labyrinths). The difference is that Mars Hill is very orthodox in their theology. They believe in full inerrancy of Scripture and a Reformed view of salvation. They believe in the exclusivity of the Gospel and categorically reject all forms of pluralism. This is what separates Mars Hill Seattle from Mars Hill Grand Rapids or Solomon's Porch Minneapolis, not their approach to culture. The phrase they often use is "theologically conservative and culturally liberal."

Now, I do agree that God is the author of salvation and that he can use a bad sermon just as well as a good sermon to bring growth, but the question is "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?"

And as for others with the megachurch thing, I think that we can be objective and say that the use of the term in this article was not meant in the "church with over 4000 attendance" way, since that would mean that the points criticizing Mark would also be criticizing people like Rob Bell, which I don't think was the intention. Instead, it is fairly clear that he is using 'megachurch' to be the derogatory way in which most Christians speak of a large church which only seems to be concerned with its own hugeness but not about really reaching people for Christ or discipling Christians. Just because words have multiple meanings doesn't mean we can deny a semantic use when the context is clear like this.

Mike Wrote:
"i was reading the first nine chapters of acts the last two days ..."

I think that the American Church is more like the Corinthian Church. Sexually immoral, full of ourselves, overly spiritual (In a bad way). I love it when people say that they want to go back to the way the Church was early on, as if they did not have any problems. There is much revival needing to happen in America and I would say that many faithful churches are trying to be part of that.

Nathan wrote:
“Seriously. What was Seattle doing until God decided to finally give them the true Gospel at the founding of Mars Hill?”

If you were to do a survey of Jesus loving, bible teaching, doctrinally sound, growing evangelical churches who are doing ministry to the city of Seattle you would be hard pressed to find many. To quote Pastor Mark (who by the way is doing ministry there) “there are more dogs than there are Christians” in Seattle. So there is a lot of work to do there, as there is a lot of work to do in America where the Church is in decline.

My thought is this… it seems like Emergent or whatever you want to call it is becoming the new form of the Liberalism that America experienced in the early 20th century. In that movement there was an emphasis and heart for evangelism and cultural engagement at first. However, after a while they did not find doctrine to be important and so pretty soon evangelism went out the window and most of these denominations now are on hospice care. God kills churches who either refuse to sign onto who He is (Jesus), or refuse to sign on to what He is about (Jesus Ministry). You have to have a balance of both. If you deemphasize doctrine the church will die because the wolves will kill it. If you deemphasize ministry you will kill your own church because it will become so inwardly focused that it will basically pop out of existence. I would say what America needs are culturally engaging churches who emphasize and teach people clear doctrine and not muddy faith or soft cotton candy faith.

Peace,

Ross Kuester, (Warsaw, IN)

Ross,

If you think that Emergent is becoming the new Liberal arm of American Christianity- in the same way that the Mainline churches took that place in the early 20th century, then I think you gravely misunderstand Emergent.

Most importantly, the context between the beginning of this century, and the last century, is extremely different. Different questions, different issues, etc... That's the biggest reason why the comparison is flawed.

Liberal Christianity in the early 20the century was responding largely to the demands of Modernism. Clearly, that's not what Emergent feels the need to cater to.

Don't be too quick to continue to lump Christian movements into one of two categories. Those categories are quickly being outgrown.

todd wrote,
Mike, I was wondering how many of Driscoll's sermons you have actually listened to?

none. since when did facts stop us from commenting on each other?...

but todd also wrote,
He is certainly the furthest person from saying to "distance yourself from" anything other than false teachings.

and who determines 'false'? and aren't those supposedly 'false' doctrines attached to other Christans? we've had doctrinal differences in Christianity for 2000 years. how do we 'distance ourselves' from doctrines without dismissing the persons?

i based my previous comment that you quoted on driscoll's own words:
In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.

at what point does the list of things we cannot agree to disagree on become the list of things we use to question the faith of others?

everyone has clowns to the left of them and jokers to the right; let's deal with it graciously and with a view towards an awareness of one's own need for humility.

in the end, we're all peering through dark glasses anyway.

mike rucker
fairburn, ga, usa

Darren,
I think you might be misconstruing Ross' comments a little. Though I don't agree with him on everything he says, I think the argument could be made that the Emergent (Village) church is acting as the new liberal Christianity in the postmodern context. It doesn't seem very generous to interpret his comments as pitting the Emergents in a Modern society, since I think we all know by now (either by knowing or by having it bashed into our heads every time some Emergent apologist talks) that Emergent is Pomo to the core! (Rarrr! Yeah! Pomo rules!)

Thank you Todd,

In no way was I saying that Emergent is responding to the same questions that Liberal Christianity of the early 20th century was. I am merely saying that the Emergent Stream of the Emerging Church movement eerily resembles the Liberal Mainline of the early 20th Century.
I came out of a very liberal denomination called the UCC. It was not always that way. It started out an ecumenical movement engaging culture (be it modern not post modern) theologically sound, and evangelistic. However, people began this conversational nonsense about should we define clearly doctrine and the decision was made not to. 50 years later they are a shallow representation of a church and are about to be slammed out of existence with a few congregations still hanging on life support.
If you take out the passion to see people come to know Jesus because you are not sure if Jesus is the only way, then the church shall surely die.
That is why I see the Emergent Movement going down the path that the liberal church has taken.
A very cool church without sound doctrine is in my opinion worthless.
A Boring, expressionless church with sound doctrine is worthless.
Can we stop offending God with our refusal to step on toes and be real with people about who Jesus is (i.e. True God and the only way) people will respect our candor. But as Dr. Timothy Keller says we have to do this with grace. (Paraphrased)

Mike, I thank you for your honesty and humor about what you've listened to from Driscoll. As far as the distancing, I was taking your comment to mean that Driscoll encouraged his church to avoid people and things in culture, like drinking or homosexuals, a view which would clearly be false to anyone who had listened to him much. However, seeing where you are taking this comment from I understand what you were getting at.

I agree with Driscoll as he says that he had to distance himself from guys like McLaren and Pagitt because they started questioning things which he (and I) view as essential like "Are there other ways?" or "Is hell real and is anybody going there?" He also meant in distancing that he had to leave the Leadership Network and get back to Seattle and work on Mars Hill because he had been neglecting it. He has discussed this a few times in messages concerning his past and his views on the emerging church.

I really suggest you listen to the messages he delivered at Southeastern seminary over this past year because he is really generous and clear about what he thinks and why.

I can understand how someone from a UCC background would see things as you do.

But I don't know if the UCC experience is representative of everything in the mainline.

Re: Seattle.
Yes. Mark Driscoll's take on things about what qualifies as Jesus loving, etc. etc. must be gospel.

It's on the record, from his own mouth, that he doesn't think much of churches that don't do things/think the way he does.

So if that's the orientation you start from, then of course Seattle was just suffering until Driscoll showed up.

If only the internet could sufficiently communicate how far my eyes are rolling back into my skull.

I don't doubt that Driscoll reaches people that some people can't, but that cuts both ways. The reality is he thinks too much of himself, and so do his sycophantic worshippers.

If he did the good work of his church and concentrated there, I could see the value.
But he confuses our culture's voyeurism and evangelicalism's love for a gadfly for every generation with a universal "brand".

I'll go ahead and say that if the Church ended up looking like Mars Hill and every leader ended up being "man enough" for Mark it really wouldn't look like Jesus' church anymore.

Two words:
Coma inducing.

Excuse me while I go puke.

Ross and Todd,

I hear you guys in terms of how you were comparing Emergent to the early Mainliners - in a more narrow context. However, I still think the comparison doesn't fit. The situation with the mainliners, in my opinion, went awry - because methodology trumped theology.

Now, there certainly is a lot more theological complexity and variability in emerging church circles as compared with evangelicalism as a whole. However, that's not to say that theology loses its place in the conversation altogether. Quite the contrary actually. Emergents might be saying something you disagree with theologically, but they're not claiming it’s really not that important. That’s very different from what happened in early 20th century Liberal Christianity.

It simply won't do to say that the only difference is that Emergent is the Liberal arm in a postmodern context, whereas the mainliners played that role in a modern context. Why? Because the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are remnants of the questions as they were posed at the height of Modernism's sway over American Christianity.

Its apples and oranges. The comparison really doesn’t fit. You admit that Emergent is fully steeped in a postmodern milieu, right? Well then, it follows that the questions themselves are very different. Square pegs into round holes won’t fit no matter how hard you try.

I'll go ahead and say that if the Church ended up looking like Mars Hill and every leader ended up being "man enough" for Mark it really wouldn't look like Jesus' church anymore.

Two words:
Coma inducing.

Excuse me while I go puke.

Nathan, though this will fall on deaf ears, there may be others out there who would benefit from the comment. What Driscoll presses, as do Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer and myself, is that all churches should have the same doctrinal core that Mars Hill does. However, as far as how the church runs and worships, they feel that that is best left up to what works in the particular culture. It's about maintaining your doctrinal integrity (the closed hand of the church, per se) alongside encouraging cultural engagement (the open hand). It is the compromising of the closed hand, which has become typical of the Emergent type churches, that Driscoll et. al. are against.

It would really be best if you listened to Driscoll more before trying to tear down what you think are his beliefs.

Believe me, Todd.
I was in a position to hear Mark Driscoll long before many others ever did, long before most people ever heard of him.

So it's not about what I think. It's about what I know.

But that's really besides the point.

2 things:
First, it would probably surprise people to find that what's in my closed fist is almost identical to Mark's.

Second, what's constantly hard is to hear statements from Driscoll and others who use words like "typical" because of the public positions of 3, maybe 4, people who have book deals.

It's easier though. I get it.
I've yet to see someone take seriously the Gibbs/Bolger book that actually represents academic research rather than broadbrush extrapolation of the personal views of a "famous" (infamous?) few.

I know why, though. That book showed that there really isn't an enemy to be fought.

It demonstrated that these people who are, understandably, concerned about the views of 3-4 people still shouldn't be able to parlay that concern into some kind of broad culture war for their own notoriety, etc.

Apparently, his big, cutting edge church and church planting organization filled with manly sycophants isn't enough for his ego.

I've yet to see any of his supporters actually refute that reality. You know why?
Because it's on the record and still drips from every word out of his mouth.

You guys (and it really is guys, isn't it) should find a new hero. On second thought, forget that. You really don't need him. Unless John Piper, Ed Stetzer, etc. aren't good enough.

Whatever.
Really.

Nathan, you know, I don't think we differ too much on how we feel about emerging churches even though we disagree on our opinions of Driscoll . I am with you in supporting the Gibbs/Bolger book, but I think your estimation of what is going on is a little skewed. Guys like McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Tony Jones and the whole of the Emergent Village are not just some little flies that people are getting too worked up about. They are representatives of a whole side of the movement which seems to have lost any desire to uphold God's Word and they certainly see themselves as champions of a whole movement, as evidenced by Jones' book title The New Christians.

I, personally, am a fan of the emerging/missional church. However, I think we need to be careful to point out that there seem to be multiple camps here. As Driscoll is oft to say, the term 'emerging' has become like a junk drawer for all types of new methods of doing church, so to reject it as a whole is going too far.

That is why, if you were to listen to the message which this author has maligned, you would get a better understanding of what Driscoll is actually saying here. In that message he breaks the new church movements into three groups: the Relevants (McManus, Kimball, Don Miller) who are trying to innovate ministry without changing core doctrines, possibly even being evangelicals (Driscoll says that he would probably not consider these guys as being emerging as we call it); the Revisionists (Bell, McLaren, Pagitt)who question everything about Christianity and Scripture and are increasingly influenced by non-Christian ideologies (these are the emerging church people he refers to in the quote); the New Reformed (Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, Josh Harris, Matt Chandler) who are concerned with expositional Bible teaching and who hold to a reformed view of salvation, but are also missional and open to modern/postmodern ecclesiology.

Once we understand what Driscoll actually said and not just taking his quote out of context as was done here I think we can begin to move towards a better understanding of where people stand, which again, as I said, I don't think between you and I is that far from each other.
W

Although Nathan may lack some tact in his approach (no offense) his comments are very applicable to this conversation. Not to mention bang on when he comments on the majority of those "loving Mark" are men.

As a woman alot of Mark's standpoints and comments scare me. Literally.

Todd mentions that other churches should have the same doctrinal core as Mars Hill, but isn't that old saying minimally true? What you believe will ultimately define how you in turn act? Perhaps even then your beliefs shape your words?

And I would be really truly heart broken if more churches put out statements like this, because their doctrinal core is the same as a pastor can unblushingly say:(a quote I am sure you are all tired of reading - but nevertheless important) "Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."

Todd,
I assume that when pastor Driscoll says "all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations" he is speaking more broadly than just the "Emergent Village" folk that you seem to be describing and criticising. In fact, he is including neo-monasticism which I view as very close to the missional church movement. This is why I felt it important to make some distinctions between the various groups when it comes to conversions. Why do you insist that he is only speaking about the "Emergent village" leadership?

P.S. I've tried to respond to some of the questions over at my blog because the number of comments was so large.

Blessings, and thanks for this extended conversation.

I realize that this thread will be dead by the time this gets posted, but...

I have, to answer the post above, heard Driscoll and I read "Vintage Jesus" for a discussion group I was in. I guess I can't see what everyone else is seeing in Driscoll. I can't see how the hyper-polemic way he presents things is helpful, much less "missional." I mean, if the Jesus he needs for worship is one he can't beat up then I think there is a great deal of Matthew 5-6 and the balance of history of the early church's relationship to power/oppression that don't matter to him. If this isn't drawing lines for the sake of personal preference if not marketing of books, then I'm really confused and unaware of reality.

I worship the strength in what Driscoll calls the "limp-wrist hippie", and I'm not ashamed of that for the very fact that we've had plenty of "Jesus-by-force" in our history and that is a vast departure (i.e. Constantine, Crusades, segregated churches in the South etc.) in that from what we see in the Gospels. How does the prize-fighter Jesus fit in with the willing-to-die-on-the-cross mendicant carpenter from the wrong side of the tracks?

grace and peace

Todd,

I hear you. And thanks for your gracious patience.

I just don't buy it when it comes to Driscoll. He's not the real deal.

In my book, if you have to go around constantly touting your cred and your manliness, then you ain't got none and you ain't much of one.

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd be careful about the Emergent Village characterization too. I know a lot of folk who are identify with that relationship network and they cringe when they hear Driscoll, not because what he says is true, but because they don't even know where to begin with how horribly wrong he is--precisely because his words don't describe our experience, our passions, our motives and the expressly stated heart behind what most of us do.

Kinda off the subject but...

A prizefighter doesn't step into a ring without knowing that they won't leave unscathed. The idea is, 'they can bruise my skin, but i will break their bones'. Jesus' death was a spiritual haymaker; He was willing to be brutalized in order to achieve victory. That's how the 'prizefighter' example fits.

David,
I insist on his audience here (which is more than just EV leadership, but includes the EV leadership) because I actually listened to the message. You can do the same. It is available at both Mars Hill's Media site as well as on the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary podcast. It was delivered at the Convergent conference last fall.

As far as the New Monastic communities, I would have to forcibly disagree that these are "very close" to the missional church movement. Try reading Ed Stetzer's book Planting Missional Churches for a good definition of what I would consider is meant by true missional churches. You may be thinking more along the lines of missional house churches, say as described by JD Payne, but I still would disagree with you that these are in the same vein as New Monastic communities.

I hope this helps clarify where I stand more.

"and the commitment to make someone bleed..."
doesn't quite sound like someone willing to be brutalized to achieve victory - it sounds like someone out on the hunt, looking to fight and looking to brutalize someone else.

But I digress...

Todd,

Which New Monastic communities/groups are you speaking of?

Why does Ed Stetzer get to define missional all by himself?

Man, you've got to love a blog post that creates a new term: Driscollesque!

I wouldn't define myself as someone within the Emergent camp (not too Ur-esque), so it's been interesting to see these conversations play out.

Press on,

Brian Jones

Nathan, I am speaking of New Monastic communities as I have read defined in various places, including the book of the same name (though I'll admit I have never experienced one firsthand).

As for the missional term, this has been widely defined for 20 years, and I just refer to Stetzer's definition (from Planting Missional Churches) because I think he does a very thorough job of working through it. Besides, Stetzer is very sympathetic to the emerging movement so I would not be too fast to dismiss him as just some fundamentalist player-hater.

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that Fitch is suffering from major category confusion? "Missional" is not equivalent to Emerging/Emergent. It's David Fitch who has not only missed the point, but missed coherence in this post.

Many different types of churches can be missional. You can be a missional house church or a missional mega church. You can be the same types of churches and not be missional at all.

Anyone who has paid attention to Mars Hill knows that they are not just plucking disaffected churched people, but seeing real, lasting conversions of total unchurched pagans. Shame on Fitch for trashing Mars Hill out of ignorance.

Driscoll did not call out "missional" churches in his address, for good reason. He considers Mars Hill and A29 to be missional. And missional churches, by definition, will see converts.

Fitch, at least have your categories straight if you're going to try to knock someone down. And while you're at it, why not put on the table how missional your church is?

It is a big mistake to assume that Mars Hill is the only purveyor of the Gospel in Seattle, or that it is even the biggest one. That is just the hype that the rest of the country buys, because after all, Seattle is that hip, cool place, home of grunge, Starbucks, tattoos and body piercings, with a nine-foot bronze statue of Lenin, a gay mecca, and nude bicyclists riding in the annual Solstice Parade. But Seattle is also the home of many emerging and authentic communities of believers who are also part of the Body of Christ. Mars Hill just gets the spotlight, in part because they have amassed a real estate empire, and a mountain of debt with it, and are spending a fortune on well-crafted "branding" that seems to be working in the rest of the country to sell books, but in Seattle is starting to sound tired and gimmicky. There are many other congregations in the city comprised of honest believers who are working quietly, earning livings, and doing what is right - bringing glory to God by the examples of their lives. They just don't have the flash and get the notice that the big kid on the block gets.

Great post Wyatt. I have friends in Seattle, some who attend Mars Hill and some who attend elsewhere. The elsewhere bunch feels very similar to you - very much so in regard to the branding that "no one else in Seattle was doing anything until this church came about..." A comment Driscoll usually doesn't refute, but indeed welcomes.

I find it ridiculous, as many have already stated, that Driscoll is portrayed as "non-missional" by the author.

The small quote above is taken WAY out of context. If the author even bothered to check out the position of Mars Hill, he would have seen that MH is MISSIONAL in it's mindset.

It bothers me that CT allows such trash to even be published.