As we come to the third article concerning the Emerging Church and its identification with the Postmodern Era, we must candidly acknowledge the characteristics and principles that mark and govern such a church.
The Emergent or Emerging Church
Amidst the reality that Postmodernism is based upon the Existential philosophy, it is interesting to note that there are certain basics that seem to control churches that have joined this movement. To use the term “basics” or “principles” is an enigma for an existential church era that does not know where it is headed. The gurus for the Emerging Church movement have often viewed themselves as a Christopher Columbus with an unchartered course and an unknown future. They truly believe the global church must conform to the beliefs of the secular Postmodern Era.
Among certain terms prominent in the Emerging Church movement is the word conversation. The Emerging Church loves to converse. Many Neo-Christian organizations, such as the prison ministry of the Yokefellows, approach their teaching this way. Their method is to allow groups of three or four people to make their own observations on a passage of Scripture under discussion. A “facilitator” simply guides their conversation and keeps it flowing. It is basically conversational dialogue. The facilitator is responsible to guard the “conversation” so that it will not lean into the direction of offending another: “Well, I can see this passage of Scripture possibly presenting that point; and that’s a good thought, and we need to keep it in mind; let’s now go on to the next passage of Scripture.” Similarly, this is what the United States has been pressing for several years in coming to Postmodernity—“Don’t go to war; we must dialogue with our enemies.”
Yet in the case of the emerging church, we are not speaking of dialoguing enemies per se, but rather a variety of Christian beliefs. The idea is that we need to respect one another in what each believes. One may believe in the deity of Christ, while another does not; but we should be able to come together in friendly dialogue. Such an approach brings no resolve in conversation. Of course, the Emerging Church is not looking so much for any biblical conclusion in all this; they are eagerly trying to break down all walls and barriers within Christianity. Ultimately, they seek the breaking down of the walls of all religions.
We were saddened by the fruitless interview in 2008 that New Testament professor Mark Minnick had with the Southern Baptist Mark Dever at Dever’s church in Washington, D.C. Not only did Dr. Minnick praise Dr. Dever highly in the dialogue, but he also could never adequately articulate any logical reason for biblical separation when the question arose. It was also evident Dr. Minnick did not want to offend Dr. Dever or those of Neo-Evangelicalism, and thus remained in a passive and light spirit to keep the “conversation” non-offensive. On several occasions in the “conversation,” Dr. Dever tried to put Dr. Minnick on the spot, but Dr. Minnick kept the conversation on a very easy-going and compromising context. Have we not learned from the political world that nothing of spiritual value comes from dialoguing with the enemy? Neo-Christianity will only weaken the Fundamentalist-separatist position when such vain dialogues take place.
Yes, this is a popular mode of the Emerging Church today—“conversation.” How does it all end? There is basically no concrete conclusion, and there is not suppose to be. The goal is merely that we were able to get together and talk. We grieved with a deep heart to observe this conversational approach in Northern Ireland when a Protestant leader sat down with an IRA terrorist laughing and shaking hands as their picture was taken to be sent around the world. Such a manner is an example of Postmodernism. To the Postmodernists, the former ecumenical approach has not been working. But to lay aside all absolutes, doctrines, and principles of Faith in its existential approach is where postmodernity steps in. Postmodernity adheres to the destruction of all doctrine.
Another popular term that Postmodernity presents is experience. Clearly, this is not an experience based upon the Word of God but simply any kind of experience. The Buddhist can say, “I had an experience”; the Christian can make the same boast of an experience. If both experience joy and peace, it is reasoned that the experiences must be the same. The Buddhist may call the experience “awareness” while the Christian calls it the New Birth; nevertheless, in Postmodernism, they are both believed to be the same. From this premise, as they dialogue, they realize they have a mutual experience and terminology resulting in certain ecumenicity. In this light, the Emerging Church seeks to harmonize with the experiences of other religions and other ideologies. The postmodern view concludes that if we are going to survive this age, we must be in harmony with everyone else’s experiences, justifying them to be the same. As long as one gets an experience that is at least remotely like the one we believe as a Christian, then it is all right; there is compatibility between us.
Conceptual Changes of Postmodernism
Another basic premise of postmodernism is that former Christianity must change, no longer to be viewed as in former days. In fact, the term and concept of “Christian” will no longer work in our postmodern society. We must come up with another view of Christian, one that is compatible with these new days.
The first conceptual change for this new Christianity must be in the cultural context. Although Postmodernism did not really enter its prime until the turn of the millennium, 2000-2001, there were forerunners, such as Billy Graham, who has been a classic postmodern Christian, believing that the church must take into serious consideration the cultural context. He and other “Christian leaders” brought into the context of Christianity rap music for worship. He exhorts us not to debate whether rap music is good or evil; we simply must bring such music and other styles of music into Christianity. These cultures are viewed as viable Christian cultures.
This cultural context philosophically has included the move toward the casual, dress-down look in public Christianity. Because people love to dress casually anywhere and everywhere they go, the church must change in its requirement before God. Because since the 1960s the culture of Western Civilization has changed, the church must seriously take it into consideration.
The present cultural context is viewed as both postmodern and pluralistic. Thus, we are pressed to bring this twofold view into our Christian meetings. We must interweave all of this into the church program—a postmodern society and a pluralistic society. We must not view any matter as to whether it is a sin or not; this is now our culture, and we must accommodate it. We must fit God into our culture, rather than biblically judging our culture as to whether it is right or wrong in the sight of God. They claim that to dress with respect before the Lord in suits, ties, or proper ladies’ dresses has “marginalized” culture. The Emerging Church reasons that the church in the past has had a margin, a narrow margin. Because of this the church has become marginalized when it comes to culture; we must now expand that margin to include anything and everything. This belief includes scenarios such as if we have individuals coming to our church that lean toward ancestral worship, then we need to have something accommodating their cultural belief. Others in the church may not worship ancestors, but they need to bring up something of the past that will honor them. Accommodate everyone that attends your church. The church has always been in a dictated, marginalized culture, but now it is not; and in the postmodernistic, emerging church, it needs to now expand.
Another conceptual change needed in this postmodern era is the call to view pastors as local missionaries. It is evident that in recent years America has growingly become a heathen or at least a pagan nation. The Emerging Church must now acknowledge that Western Civilization has entered paganism. But what this statement means is that our communities have their own culture, their own ways of thinking, their own music, etc. Like a missionary going into a foreign field to bring the gospel, so every pastor must do the same. He is going into a foreign area—at least foreign to the church—into his community, so he must be a missionary rather than a pastor. This approach is what missionary work has become according to the contemporary church. Missionaries are viewed as those who accommodate themselves to their surrounding culture. When one visits other countries and observes most missionaries, they are usually very relaxed and laidback. They are sympathetic toward even the bad aspects of their culture, believing one must be accommodating. They believe that even the music of that culture must not only be respected but also used in their evangelistic outreach. Similarly back in America, pastors, like missionaries, must approach their churches the same.
In 1919, before the birth of the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical movement began on the mission field. Missionaries isolated geographically from Christian fellowship derided the fact that they could not have fellowship with other professing Christians of different theological persuasions. Nevertheless, they began secretly meeting together on their own. When the pressure from the denominational headquarters came upon them, the missionaries cried out in protest: “You must give us greater leeway in how we handle these things.” Soon, the denominations began to permit these unequally-yoked fellowships. This became not only true among denominational missionaries but also between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. It stands to reason that if this has become the situation around the world, then the pastor is to be more of a local missionary rather than a pastor of the church. He too must be accommodating with other pastors in the community.
Another conceptual insight of the Emerging Church concerns the church worship service itself. The worship service must now blend what they call the ancient styles with the contemporary forms. How is this first done? They simply have a contemporary church service at 8:30, where the pastor does not wear a tie, and where the music is upbeat. Then at 10:00, the pastor will wear a tie and coat, and the congregation will sing the more traditional hymns. The Emerging Church knows that the transition is not going to be easy, especially with older people. Yet, the transition must try to pull them on board toward this postmodern approach. They will still keep some of the ancient styles while mixing them with the contemporary forms.
It is amazing how one can witness in some of these large churches-auditoriums members dressed in suits and ties, sitting in their folding cushioned-chairs, and seated right next to others in shorts or a tank top. Both must be accommodated. Both are saying “amen.” Some may be surprised to see Joel Osteen still wearing his tie to preach in, but his change may come any day. Contrastingly, Richard Roberts appears in his faded jeans, his wife dressed every kind of way each week, and their daughter taking her dress further into the generation’s culture. Trinity Broadcasting Network has a variety of hosts in the extreme attire as part of the cutting-edge Neo-Christianity. Eventually there will come a day when the transition has been completed—the ancient style discarded like tattered garments.
Still another basic premise that has become the capstone of the Emerging Church is the approach to missions. The cutting-edge term is Glocal. Glocal is a combination of the words global and local. Global missions is the approach that says we are to go into the world, to all nations. Meanwhile, the Emerging Church observes that while we are going abroad, we are losing locally. Fewer and fewer are coming out to the local church. At the same time, the mega churches are flourishing under the success of the Emerging Church; therefore, the missionary work now that the individual must concentrate on is local.
Why is it called glocal? First of all, American Christianity is bringing this about. This is Western Civilization talking, for such a civilization movement has now become global. Every nation now is being forced into a multi-culture. What is an American now? The former identification and appearance are gone. Our communities have come to an eclectic melting pot. What is American culture? Apart from the South and maybe a few places in the North, you can say, “Well, maybe that is American culture.” But we have become glocal in this concept in that in many local neighborhoods, there may be twenty different ethnic races, twenty different cultures found. Of course, this is not true simply of America. In London, England, one may look in vain for a true Englishman; the once typical Englishman, with derby and cane or umbrella, rarely will be found. The people most prevalent there are Muslims, Afghans, Indians, etc. Go any place—Australia, Singapore, Korea, etc.—and see how the countries are becoming melting pots of cultures. Where there is any form of liberty, that country is strongly now becoming global in its culture. Yet one can go to Muslim populated areas of the world, and the culture will be singularly Muslim. Why? Because the Muslims will keep others out, beat them up, or even kill them. They fight to preserve the singular culture of their country and religion.
The Emerging Church philosophy declares that the local church must meet that global culture. Probably one of the key countries on the planet today that has endeavored to work strongly with this has been Singapore. Singapore is a country that is controlled by the government. It controls where one lives. If an individual wants to move to another apartment on the other side of the city, he must go through a council to seek permission, and the ratio culturally must be exact for him to gain permission to move over there. The vast majority of the people do not own any real estate; they simply lease it from the government. There are presidential transitions rather than unconditional elections—at one time a Malaysian, the next time an Eurasian, the next time an Indian, the next time a Chinese. The government carefully scrutinizes churches in Singapore, including what is said. One cannot offend the government or offend any position that the government has taken. In Singapore the minister must include this glocal view in his presentation.
Conclusion
This is where we have come. It is part of the providence of God that the world is becoming increasingly a pluralistic society; this society will lead to the Antichrist Kingdom of the End Time. In order to survive in the Postmodern Era, the church is called upon to get in harmony with world society, whether in its beliefs, its manner of living, its music, or its preaching or teaching. The cry now is to pluralistically accommodate. No truth will be preached that will take a stand against anything that could be viewed as attacking the culture; this would be seen as committing genocide upon a culture. So more and more, the teaching or preaching must become generic and non-offensive. Most of the public preaching today is merely “teaching” that hopes to alleviate any hurt or wound. It is the safest type of teaching that there is. The church has now become a pep-talk social gathering to help each other make it through life in universal “self esteem.”
In our next issue of Straightway, a final article on the Postmodern Church will be presented to give the greater, subtle perspective that will claim the church in the near future. It will concern the higher mystical emphasis of the Emerging Church in its call for all “spirits” to come together in the “now” realm of personal existence.