Last Wednesday I attended the 8:30 AM session of the National Pastors Conference here in San Diego. Since this is my backyard and since Mark Driscoll is a friend, I wanted to check out the discussions taking place in this session over the latest book that dropped with Mark as a contributor.

Karen Ward, John Burke, Doug Pagitt and Mark Driscoll all sat on a panel answering various questions regarding the beliefs and practices of a variety of emerging contexts. I will be honest, I can’t stand the name “emerging” or “emergent.” It seems as soon as a label is slapped on something it gets reduced to a handful of poster boys (and girls) which have been chosen to represent it by various publishing firms and leadership groups. But, without a label you can’t really sell books. It makes sense, but this movement purposely shuns definitions that have fixed meanings (thanks are made to Derrida for those with such a postmodern hermaneutic). That’s a digression, but a necessary one.

They structured the panel differently than most sessions. Each contributor of “Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches” was present except Dan Kimball. They had us break up into 4 different groups of 8 people and then had each speaker sit in our group to answer questions. I actually liked the idea since it gave us an opportunity to look them face to face so that we can attempt to surmise what they actually believed (of which Doug shared with us that he didn’t like the word “believe”-I guess he believes it’s an inappropriate word).

Our first guest to our little smart-mob was John Burke from Gateway Church. I liked him, he seemed sincere and genuine and answered our questions without taking offense. I was very interested in his comments regarding community and the place of community in learning. I liked that he desired to create and environment where thinking questions were welcomed and where the body of Christ is encouraged to ask questions when they feel as if they’re stuck or simply curious. What concerned me was the constant reference to be “like Jesus” and to look to Jesus as our example. I asked him what place proclamation had in a community that is primarily centered around incarnational communal discussions. He asked me what I meant and I clarified that I was curious as to when the Gospel is actually proclaimed as news and not advice in His community. He said that it depended on what I meant by “the Gospel” and that people have different definitions. I clarified that I meant that we proclaim what Christ actually accomplished as news and call others to turn from sin and trust in His finished work. That to preach grace means that you preached news, not advice on how to live like Jesus, but news about the life that Jesus lived in our place. The question was not answered as our time ran out. It would have been great to hear a thoughtful response to this.

Our second guest was Karen Ward from Church of the Apostles. This was an interesting exercise in nailing Jell-O to the wall. Part of what concerns me about this new form of liberalism is its purposeful vagueness as if it is to be commended that we obfuscate rather than clarify our words and ideas. The disdain for definition is felt immediately when I began to ask questions about what acts as her underlying belief or presupposition for theology or ministry. The word games and semantic shuffle makes you feel like your herding cats with a bubble blower. I realize this form of communication is considered avant garde in our pomo/post-pomo culture, but this is nothing more than repackaged deconstructionism sprinkled with postmodern Christianese to be passed off as deeply intellectual thought. This is mere psuedo-intellectual babble by those who wish to pawn old existentialism as novel theology. I’m being a bit rough- Karen was kind enough, interested enough, but purposefully unclear. I fear that we are becoming a culture that prides itself in answering questions with questions while never having to say what it is that we believe. I know this is exactly the point of many emerging conversations, since the journey is valued over the destination. It’s as if the destination of a question, if answered, is perceived to be the end of the conversation. Why? It should act as the beginning since we can now speak in such a way that we are seeking to better understand one another, not just go for a verbal walk. Scenic strolls are nice, but only if we can agree that we are on a road, looking at a particular kind of flower under a certain hue of the sky which can be articulated with words. Conversations that can not agree to use words which arrive at a mutual definition is like taking a walk with an alien. You’ll have a hard time enjoying what you can’t communicate to yourself or to others. Have we come to mere grunting and pointing like cavemen now in our Christianity?

I asked Karen a few questions about community and its role in clarifying beliefs and she mentioned that she will not say what her church believes without asking them first. Needless to say, I couldn’t disagree more. She thinks that her “church” is her local congregation alone and fails to realize that the beliefs of the “church” are to be held not only in a localized context but with consideration for our brothers and sisters of the faith for the last 2,000 years. Our beliefs are defined by THE community, which is described in God’s Word. It is to that original community that we learn what we are called to hold fast to and reject. I certainly appreciate her desire for an honest communal hermaneutic, but fail to see how this is more noble considering it then exalts itself above all other communities whether past or present. Though appearing more humble it actually becomes quite arrogant to allow one small local church to define the Gospel which is held to by Christians throughout the centuries who adamantly disagree with her particular social gospel (more on that later).

Doug Pagitt from Solomon’s Porch was next to sit with our group. This was basically a masculine version of Karen’s feminine theology. I say masculine because he was quick to tell us what he had problems with and much more aggressive in his call for gentle theology (don’t get me started). I asked Doug what he believed sin was and he said that he believed it to be “disintegration.” He said that grace was “integration.” He spoke like a poetic programmer trying to explain code to non-technical people in a way they would be led to “aha” moments. I never experienced the “aha” moment because I was still wondering why he chooses to use words which reduce the idea of sin down to a nice little sociological catch-phrase. Then I asked why he didn’t think justification was important, to which he responded that he thought justification is not a forensic declaration or pardon, it was much richer in the Hebrew (I reminded him that justification in the New Testament is used in Greek courtroom terminology). To each reply I gave to his pithy statements, he just moved on to another ethereal word which strayed from basic theological definitions. Again, I know this is supposed to be his genius, but to me the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes. Again the cross was made into some example for us to follow and was stripped of its gore and its horror as we are told to look at it fondly as a way to suffer like Jesus with a smile. I’m sorry, but I’m not Jesus and the cross is not only an example, it is a statement that it is finished. It is a way that God deals with my sin upon His Son so that He could be just and the justifier (an unpopular term with Doug) of my ungodly little carcass. Enough of christus exemplar when considering the cross! He lived not primarily as an example, but in my place. He died not primarily as an example, but in my place. He suffered alienation so that I don’t have to. He suffered exile, so that I could be brought in. He isn’t a guy who taught us on the cross how to take one for the team. He is God who humbled Himself and became a sacrifice for our sin (not disintegration) against a perfect and holy God. He was my substitute and did not die to teach me how to pay for my own sin. This is the thing- we don’t need Jesus as a counselor or example, we need Him as a King who can fix what’s wrong and pay my debt. I’m not taking away Christ’s life as an example to us, but let’s admit that we can never follow His example until we first have our sin dealt with on Calvary. All else is nothing more than a works based religion which is foreign to grace.

Our last guest was Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church. Since Mark is a friend and I am biased my opinion here is obviously going to be favorable. I commend the book to you so that you can decide for yourself.

This session ended with all four of the speakers sitting up front to field questions which were written down for them to answer. Low and behold my question was the first up- “What role does the cross-specifically the aspect of penal substitutionary atonement play in your ministry.” it saddens me that Karen and Doug gave your typical “cross as example” answer and left John and Mark having to explain the significance of the cross of Christ. John did this very politically correct and Mark basically said (and I’m paraphrasing) that if you don’t get the cross, you’re not a Christian. It is what sets Christianity apart from all other beliefs and faiths. Mark then gave a great explanation of the many aspects of the atonement and what Christ accomplished for us on our behalf.

I am probably being a little less gracious than I would like on this post, but I can’t help but grieve that these ideas and discussions are not taken more seriously. I am praying that I would find a more gracious way to discuss these concerns with those who hold to such views. Pray for me on this and pray for those who are swallowing this theology to their peril.