Home » Emerging Church Movement » Emergent and the Regulative Principle

Emergent and the Regulative Principle

Photo of author
Written By Tim Brister

Tim has a missionary heart for his hometown to love those close to him yet far from God. He is husband to Dusti and father to Nolan, Aiden, and Adelyn - fellow pilgrims to our celestial city.

PBS recently did a two-part series looking at Emergent–the more liberal wing of the emerging church movement.  As Driscoll came to see some merit to my question on the Regulative Principle, he mentioned some of what you will see below.  Take a look, and tell me what you think.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzZ14Sk9u9Y]

19 thoughts on “Emergent and the Regulative Principle”

  1. One thing that stands out to me is the overwhelming sense that the Emergent leaders know that what they are saying is controversial and perhaps embrace controversy for its own sake. I try, as a staunch evangelical conservative, to maintain a sense of unbias as I watch this movement unravel and I find that these leaders are more postmodern than Christian. Their vocabulary carries a majority postmodern element and a minority Christian element. Is this just me?

  2. I think the regulative principle question also ties in with the other Ask Anything(tm) question about what traditional churches can learn from emerging types. As I’ve learned more about spiritual gifts and how they’re intended to function, it seems clear to me that most of them cannot be exercised in a Sunday morning assembly as they’re currently structured. But I think it’s a false dilemma to say we must either assemble in the large Sunday morning fashion or in less formal, more communal settings. I think a responsible church eldership will seek flourishing pockets of gospel community among all their members in a variety of ways.

    So I don’t think the more traditional model is what needs to die. I think what needs to die is the idea that both sides of the question may feel they have the solution. And again, I think the question of the Regulative Principle only addresses part of the issue. If we’re Continuationists, especially (which may not be the consensus), the question of how we give occasion for the Spirit to use the gifts he has given for the edification of the church should be of much concern. Prophecy, tongues, interpretation and several others are addressed to bodies that assemble Is this a facet of the RP that is addressed? Do we Regulate the current model as well?

  3. I am far removed by the development of the emerging church in the U.S. since I live in Japan but I have been following the movement through the Blog World. The PBS documentary was fascinating to watch because as you listened, you can hear the “man centeredness” that permeates this movement. I was glad to see D.A. Carson allowed to express his thoughts. As he said, there is truth to be taught. (Carson just recently came to Japan to teach on the relevance of the Gospel to the culture of Japan here) What they need to be asking is, “What does the Bible fundamentally say it is in being spiritual?” It is not a matter of technique so it begins with having the Spirit which is part of conversion. The Gospel is God centered and not man centered and should be at the very center of our lives. Like Carson said, it (the truth) must be announced and explained not just by living a nice Christian life. Thanks Tim for sharing this video, I enjoyed being able to watch and listen.

  4. Alan, I don’t think you’re alone, but I do think you are wrong.

    The emergent conversation is a conversation about what it means to follow Jesus Christ, what it means that the Bible is God’s Word, what it means to “do church,” and in that sense, the whole movement is more of a conversation than a “camp” with a creed. Such a conversation, however, assumes that what’s most important IS ACTUALLY following Jesus, understanding how one is related to the Bible, understanding what the best way to “do church” is, etc. It’s more Christian than it is “postmodern” because it still assumes that a conversation about Jesus, The BIBLE, and Church is central to their “religion.” Just because we may not like some of the “methods” or may be a little worried about where the conversation might lead some, we shouldn’t discredit them as NON-Christians. This would not fit the contours of the movement. Even D.A. Carson doesn’t go that far.

    As far as the regulative principle is concerned, it seems to me that they still consider, the teaching of God’s Word, communion, musical worship, etc. to be a normal part of worship. They are only experimenting with NEW ways to teach, new ways to do communion, new ways to fulfill what the biblical norms for worship actually are. In this sense, they have not IN GENERAL strayed from the regulative principle, at least as John Frame (Reformed Theologian at Reformed Baptist Theological Seminary in Orlando Florida) sees and explains the Regulative Principle (see his book “Worship in Spirit and Truth”).

    I think Carson is BOTH rightly concerned about SOME of the teachings of SOME of the Emergent leaders AND I also think he has a bit of a case of what I like to call Theological Snobbery. I say that based on what he has written about the movement, not based on a judgment of his heart. His reasons for being “uptight” about the movement are theological in nature, even though he has not proven that the leaders are fundamentally un-Christian or disbelieving the message of the gospel. He’s probably got a good sense of what the best answers are to most of the questions they are asking. He doesn’t seem to trust that they will come to the right answers on their own.

    All in all, I think people are too critical of the emergent leaders. Take Alan’s comment (above). He suggests that these emergent guys love controversy for the sake of controversy. This is a judgment about the motives of people who are a part of the emergent church. But where does he get this idea? Does he have friends who are in the “movement” / conversation who have admitted this to him or is he presuming this to be the case based on the video? Has he read a books by their leaders who say that they enjoy controversy or even hinted at that? Where does he get such an idea? It *seems* to me that he has made a critical judgment about the motives of people he doesn’t even know based on ZERO evidence. Is that fair? It doesn’t seem to be. People have questioned their motives left and right without stopping to realize that such judgments (about motives) are uncharitably presumptuous if they don’t have some solid basis to ground them. But no one seems to want to give these guys the benifit of the doubt or “play fair” in their criticism’s of them.

    I think the Emergent church is a wake up call to the church in America. Our churches are dying, and we need to re-examine our “methods” for “doing church” in a way that both honors the teaching of scripture, but experiments with new methods—and I don’t simply mean throw in an electric guitar and strobe-lights OR try dressing more casual OR other superficial things. There is a growing discontent, which I share with the emergent leaders, that there is a great lack of genuine community in most churches, a theological stubbornness and snobbery among many churches, too much fighting over secondary issues, too many unhelpful traditions, etc. There a lot of problems with the way we have been “being Christian” and “doing church.” That’s not a denial of the gospel, that’s based on a concern to better live out the gospel.

    Blessings

  5. As seen on the PBS documentary, some practices that characterize the emergent movement are quite clearly contrary to the regulative principle- practices such as labyrinth walking or other medieval rituals that are seen as “cool.” These practices have no biblical basis whatsoever and are thus idolatrous, the inventions of men.

    Some figureheads of the emergent conversation are quite clearly heretical. They refuse to affirm truth that Jesus Himself affirmed. Listen, for example, to the interview of Doug Pagitt on Way of the Master Radio. In his view, Heaven is not a place and Hell is just a post-mortem refining process- faith in Jesus is not presented as the One Way to God.

  6. Andrew,

    1) “some figureheads of the emergent conversation are quite clearly heretical” – I’m yet to see any of them deny the basic message of the gospel myself, but this may be due to my failure to be well-read on the matter. Even so, it is also true that many of the figureheads of the Reformation were heretical, many of the leaders in the Reformed churches today are heretical, many of the leaders in the Anglican church are heretical, many of the leaders of the Baptist churches are heretical, many of the leaders of the Presbyterian churches are heretical, etc. etc. etc. etc. It’s unfair to compare the worst of the emergent leaders to the best of the rest.

    2) Are you suggesting that labyrinth walking (or other rituals) have taken the place of the teaching of God’s Word in the churches which were on the video? If so, how do you know this to be true? Having fried chicken at a local park with other believers after church is not commanded either in scripture, but that doesn’t make it wrong unless I’m using to REPLACE those things which are commanded.

    3) Even if some of the practices are ridiculous and unbiblical, if the emergent church’s are still teaching God’s word, practicing communion, prayer, admonishments, and those other things which are the biblical norms of worship in the New Testament, then my statement still stands: IN GENERAL, they have not strayed from the regulative principle. It’s unfair to compare the “worst” of the emergent church to the “best” of evangelical ultra-conservativism. I could pick out many terrible practices in the more conservative branches of Christianity and say, “See, the conservatives have strayed from the regulative principle.” But this would on overgeneralization.

    4) You seem to assume that a practice which is unbiblical is “idolatrous.” First, you must clarify what you mean by “unbiblical,” because passing an offering plate is NOWHERE commanded in the bible, but it seems to be a widely accepted practice even in the most conservative churches. Same goes for selling books in the church, using microphones, giving announcements, using hymnals rather than the Bible for music lyrics, baby dedications, “alter calls,” “business meetings,” etc. These things are in a sense “unbiblical,” but does that make them idolatrous? Second, even if it is something that is “unbiblical” in the sense of “wrong,” you should be careful about calling it “idolatry,” unless you are also willing to admit you are also commit idolatry all throughout any given worship service you may attend (unless you obey the first commandment perfectly and therefore have a fully committed heart throughout the entire worship service). I suppose you could say anything that is a “sin” is also “idolatry” in the sense that we are failing to put God first, but if that’s the case, then the word could just as easily apply to all churches—-they all continually engage in idolatry no matter whether they are emerging, emergent, or Reformed Baptist. If you mean to suggest that having an unbiblical practice during a worship service—say, speaking in “tongues” without an interpreter or something—renders the worship as a whole as totally nullified, not worship of God, might as-well be paganism, etc., then you certainly have a very uncharitable and judgmental way of looking at imperfect churches.

    5) You also seem to assume that to fail to affirm something Jesus affirmed is heretical, but there is a big difference between failing to affirm something Jesus affirmed—say, the fact that one should be stubborn in their prayers (Mt 7:7)—-and holding to some heresy that undermines the basic message of the gospel. The term “heretical” has a connotation of “damning doctrine that undermines the basic message of the gospel” (i.e. something that directly contradicts the basic message of the gospel). Of course, if someone understands the language in the scripture about Heaven and Hell to be symbolic imagery to help us get a sense of what the afterlife will be for the righteous and the wicked, this is different from denying the reality of an eternal blessedness for some and an eternal misery for others. Doctrines like inclusivism and annihilationism may be unbiblical and dangerous to Christianity, but those who hold to these doctrines are not necessarily unregenerate non-Christians. Maybe that’s what you think, but people like Carson and Piper don’t even go that far.

    Thanks for altering me to Doug’s views on Hell. I’m sad to hear. Could you leave me the link to that Doug Pagitt interview? Thanks.

  7. Bradley:
    1. You give *some* (not all) too much credit for their intentions in staying rooted in theology. As attested to in the video many do not even have a clear understanding of what theology means.
    2. John Frame teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary (not Baptist in name nor general constituency.
    3. My judgements are not based solely on one video, so please do not do the very thing you are accusing me of doing (basing judgements on a select piece of information). I BOTH know emergent leaders in my area and have read books by some of the most prominent members of the “conversation.” Also, Solomon’s Porch has quite a lot of information about their views on their website and I almost vomited and wept at the same time after seeing their take on how church should be done. I agree with Jennifer that it is extraordinarily man-centered.
    4. My biggest issue is not even the fact that they are controversial for controversy’s sake but that some of them are in fact heretical (see Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis).

  8. Bradley:
    There is a significant difference between passing the offering plate in a conservative church as being a normative act that could be seen as “unbiblical” and replacing the preaching of the Word with a round-table discussion (which was clearly advocated in the video by at least one church). This clearly breaks from the regulative principle (at least on this point…which is a significant one).

  9. Alan,

    1) you say that from the video it’s “clear” that they don’t even know what theology is about—-which part of the video do you have in mind? You never mentioned anything specific.

    2) You say “my judgment are not based solely on one video,” and I never said they were. I was questioning, not accusing. So, if you have read books and know some emerging leaders, what statements have they made in their books or their statements which indicate that they love controversy for its own sake? I still haven’t seen any conclusive evidence for your judgment on this. Also, when you say it’s clear that they are “man centered,” which quotes from the video or books do you have in mind which reveal a man-centerdness? Also, where in Bell’s “Velvet Elvis” do you find heresy? Furthermore, how do you define heresy? So many claims, so little evidence. I’m not saying your not right, I’m just frustrated that everyone seems to make so many assesments and judgments without ever presenting a good case for them.

    3) What does John Frame’s not being baptist have to do with our discussion? This was not clear to me.

    4) You still haven’t clarified your terms. What position do you take on the regulative prinicple? Do you believe we shouldn’t do anything unless it’s commanded (such as offering plate passing, selling books in the church, making announcements, etc.)? Or do you take a more John-Framish position on the regulative principle? What do you mean by “unbiblical”? Sure there is a difference between passing the plate and removing the teaching of God’s Word, but you haven’t explained how your terms do justice to this difference, since the only distinction you make is between the “biblical” and the “unbiblical.” “Unbiblical” is an ambiguous term so far in this discussion.

    Also, I wonder whether Doug’s “round table” model is simply a more engaging way to teach rather than a “free-for-all-what-do-you-think?” type of “everyone’s answer is equally legit” type of “there is no absolute truth” type of “let’s just have a conversation without looking to the Bible for truth” type of thing. Just because he likes to engage in conversation with those he teaches doesn’t mean he’s not teaching the Word along the way. Thus, while it may be “clear” to you that the regulative principle is being broken, it is not clear that you have made a good case for this. It depends on which flavor of the regulative princile you adhere to, and it seems that holding to a super-strict flavor of the principle must answer to my questions about how one justifies the selling of books, making announcements, using microphones, and passing plates, etc. These things are not commanded, but we do them without ever feeling like we need to justify them. Why is that?

  10. TB,

    Like most, I think you listen to the good and chuck the bad. When we swallow everything whole, we get into trouble, no matter what we swallow. I know some who know me will see the multiple layers in that last comment.

    Being formerly a long time Youth Minister, I used to attend the National Youth Worker’s Convention put on by Youth Specialties. Since about 2003 (give or take) they had begun to bring in special speakers to focus on Emergent as it relates to Youth Ministry. They even came up with an “e” logo and put it beside those conferences and created an “Emergent Track” that you could take throughout the conference. One of the regular speakers was Tony Jones, seen in the video.

    Several years ago in Nashville, I attended one of the sessions offered to see what these people were saying. Honestly, I never got the big picture because, after 45 minutes of talking, the guy (not Jones) hadn’t really said anything. He was focusing so hard on deconstructing the structure in a way that everyone could feel included and unoffended, I couldn’t take it anymore and left.

    Not to say that all “emergent” proponents are this way or that this was in any way typical. I don’t know that it is, was or even could be.

    My point is that some of what they are saying about a cultural shift away from what we have always done is right, but DA Carson is also right in that there is absolute truth and if that makes someone uncomfortable, then it does and it is something to which they will have to adjust.

  11. While I’m concerned with statements from many of the leaders of Emergent and do not identify myself with it, more often than not I find myself defending them. The main issue I have is the charicatures and broadstroked criticisms toward it. In this sense, I resonate with a lot of what Bradley is saying here.

    It is unhelpful to just toss out criticisms that the conversation/movement is “heretical”, “man-centered”, or simply seeking controversy. It’s too easy to say that. Younger people are leaving the traditional church in droves – and for some very good reasons. They seek authenticity, community, and being missional. Is that such a bad thing?

    Criticisms with no acknowledgement of the valid points of Emergent or emerging does nothing except indirectly defend the status quo, which is in shambles in the Evangelical world. Does the regulatory principle tell us that we need to define church as a karoake style event of finely crafted entertainment with prosperity gospel-infused sermons? If not, then the critics should give equal time to those criticisms.

    Postmodern is not inherently “good” or “bad”, it just is. (For fundamentalists, postmodern basically means “of the devil”.) The church can learn how to communicate in this type of culture or it can become irrelevant.

  12. Brad:
    A comment post on a blog is no place to engage in a full-fledge theological debate. I’m sure you can have lunch with a local pastor if you want to truly want to find answers. I also do not need to cite every example I give with Chicago style footnotes in order for my statements to be valid. This is simple a forum for discussion. I made a statement about my thoughts in general regarding the Emergent movement and I believe that is where my faults lie, now that I think about it. The overall “discussion” is far too broad to be narrowed into a few tendencies, though I think mine might still cover the general populous. However, at the end of the day don’t let my feeble opinion get your blood boiling because at the end of the day I don’t really matter all that much. In fact five days out of seven I’m not even sure what I believe, let alone have the stamina to construct a worldview that includes the Rob Bell’s and Brian McClaren’s of the world. Go hammer away at John Frame if you need some real answers because he’s one of the smartest men I’ve ever met. (the John Frame comment made earlier was simply for clarification for all who might care, not trying to offend)

  13. What I noticed about this movement from this one video is that they do not go through scripture. They simply discuss things and abstractly talk about God and what it means to them. They also incorporate other religions into their worship. It looks like it’s just whatever you want it to be. It’s just creating God as we want to experience him. If we want to meditate on mats with candles or walk a labyrinth or basically whatever you want it’s fine. You can bring in eastern religion or catholicism or whatever and experience God. It’s like creating a new religion and calling it Christian because they desire to follow Jesus. At least that’s how it looked in this video with these specific congregations they visited. It’s very existential. Looks very dangerous.

  14. I have read and watched with a great sorrow this movement gain way too much attention. The bottom line to me is this , the message from Jones,Pagitt or whoever is a shallow and empty gospel and is hardly one a Bunyan would be imprisioned for preaching , instead he would find a way to dialogue or what of the early martyrs that went to thier deaths refusing to compromise the faith once and for all time delivered to the saints . No they would probaly say someting like , well what is it really to follow Jesus or truth or well on and on because the conversation never ends!! This is a another gospel and as I watch one of the most self centred generations re-invent the gospel in thier image it makes me weep for the generation to come .

  15. I think “outside the box” as much as anyone. God is transcendent and cannot be boxed in. However, we are decidedly created in a box and God has provided boundaries we should not cross. He has prescribed worship. Within His prescribed worship there is room for great diversity of expression and communication. However, just like Cain’s offering was not acceptable and Abel’s was, we must be careful that we are clear about our focus. If 20-somethings are attracted to “church” because the “church” indulges self-centered theological error, then it’s not acceptable corporate worship – period.

    I’ve kept a wary eye on the “non-denominational” movement and the two are similar. For my non-denominational brothers and sisters I appreciate the zeal for the Lord they often exhibit. However, they often tout their non-denominationalism in such a way that seems like non-denominationalism is their denominational distinctive. Among the emerging churchgoers I hear the same sort of argument such that rebellion against traditionalism is their denominational distinctive. Bzzzt – wrong focus. I don’t mind the couches, “church in the round”, labyrinths and painting as much as I warn against practices and teachings that take the focus off Christ and place it squarely on us. As much as the emergents assert that they are Christ-focused, being fluid and undefinable makes it impossible to make this claim with any certitude. To be sure, traditions need to be challenged from time to time to ensure that they have not become as the religion of the Pharisees. However, to be cliche, you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  16. No, God can’t be put in a box but he can’t be removed from his Word either. What God do we believe in that is the ultimate question. If we believe that we have the right to go into the unknown outside of God’s Word to figure him out then we truly do not know the One True Living God. We would be creating another religion and worshiping another god.

  17. No, God can’t be put in a box but he can’t be removed from his Word either. What God do we believe in that is the ultimate question.

    bingo. this is the crux of the matter when we come down to it, isn’t it?

    it’s as simple as affirming or denying the following statement:

    the Bible alone reveals God to all people for all time.

    now that i think about it, my NIV study bible did come in a box…

    imagine that.

    mike rucker
    http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

Comments are closed.