Zeal For Truth

Considering that the emerging church movement (EC) is a popular topic on this blog and that the articles written thus far have not appeared to be critical of or even acknowledge some of the more questionable aspects of the EC, I felt that for my first (and maybe last, depending on how this goes) guest article, I would address some of my perceptions of the weaknesses of the EC. If I am unnecessarily hard on the EC (hopefully that is not the case), it is partly because I wish to balance those who are unnecessarily easy on it. If I get another opportunity to post on here, I hope to share a review of D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.

Until then, and without any mention of he who shall not be named in fear of political spammers (nope, I’m not referring to Alan Keyes)… here is a video of Solomon’s Porch, one of the premier emerging churches in the country, located in Minneapolis. Presumably, this video was filmed and edited by Solomon’s Porch (SP from now on) members with the intention that all that is shown is representative of SP’s beliefs and church structure.

Since the video mostly entails short snippets of quotes from different members of the church (including Doug Pagitt, its leader and founder), it is difficult for a viewer to do much more than “read between the lines” of what is said. With that in mind, I have decided that the best way to begin a discussion of the potential worries I have with SP (and other ECs) is to pose some questions in response to what is heard on the video.

We just knew that the way that we had done Christianity all of our lives was no longer a viable option anymore. - Unidentified man

Why was your Christianity not viable? And if this new way is no longer “viable” and is biblically-justifiable, shouldn’t this apply to all Christians? If so, why? If not, what makes it right for SP but not the rest of the Church?

Solomon’s Porch began in Jan. 2000 and it’s a church… - Pagitt

What is your definition of a “church” (in particular, in the context used here, the small “c” version)? And what should be the ultimate goal and “target audience” of a church? I would say that a Christian “church” is a gathering of believers in Jesus that allows for fellowship, teaching from the Scriptures, and worship of the Triune God. Thus, the goal would be to facilitate the abovementioned functions with a “target audience” of Christ-confessing believers.

Ultimately, community that is Christian needs to be a community of love. - Pagitt

I concur. However, how do you define love? Is it defined as only encouraging, “nice” behavior toward others or does love also involve reproach, Godly criticism, and correction?

For example, there is no statement of belief at this church or statement of faith. There is not like a set-in-stone theological writing that everyone in this church has to adhere to. Because everyone does have different ideas and all of those ideas are important and valued. It is very cooperative that way.” - Unidentified woman

A statement of faith is probably not always necessary, but having no theological beliefs to which to hold is preferable?? Does this mean that not every member of Solomon’s Porch has to adhere to the Bible and its teachings? Or what about the cardinal Christian doctrines, like the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, and the atonement (to name a few)? Also, what if someone has a wrong idea about God? Why is that valued? How does this compare to the Bible’s constant teaching that there is no place in the church for wrong ideas about God (Titus 1, 2 John 1:10, etc.), implying that not all “ideas are important and valued.”

Things run into far more trouble when there is a strong authority structure because they always go bad. Look at government, the history of governments, the history of countries, look at the history of monarchies, you look at the history of the church. The larger and more powerful and dominant the structure is, the more deeply flawed it will become… Okay, so our community meets in the round, so we face each other. And if we say we believe that people matter and that the spirit of God moves in people, that there is no person that has a privileged place to speak about God in our community over anyone else, that everyone has the right to speak for God, then we should try to level the structure and the playing field as much as possible so that can happen. - Pagitt

It would seem that in protesting strong authority, you have neglected the inherent problems of a weak authority structure and the fact that many New Testament apostles specifically set up authority structures to defend against false teaching and to strengthen the congregation. How do you defend against heresy or weak theology at SP with supposedly no authority structure? What if someone stands up and says that Jesus didn’t really die as a ransom for our sins; rather, He died to give us a perfect example of love. Or if someone claims that the Trinity doesn’t exist? Is there someone who will speak loving correction to those errors? Or is it left to each person to figure out for him or herself what is true?

How does everyone having “the right to speak for God” jive with what the Word says in Romans about everyone in the Body having different gifts? After all, some are given the gift to teach, and have been trained in and studied the Bible at length, while others are gifted in other ways and have not done the type of study necessary to teach the Scriptures to others. Where in Scripture do you find support for this anti-authority ideal?

Early on, people got together and said, “Hey, should we do communion?” Yeah, let’s do communion. How should we do communion? I’ve heard the kingdom of God is supposed to be like a house party, so let’s do communion like a house party. - Unidentified man

When you “do communion,” where is the focus? Is it primarily on the community of believers or is it on Christ and His sacrifice?

All that hokie “What Would Jesus Do” stuff came from a very good spot. If Jesus were walking in the flesh, if this has been the time that he had been incarnated, what would be the issues that would be on his plate? I believe that you better bet it would be racism, and it would be environment, and it would be globalization, and it would be feeding the masses, and it would be these sorts of things. - Unidentified woman

Where does repentance of sins and worship of a holy God fall? Sixth, seventh? Ok, perhaps I’m being too harsh. But I am definitely sensing a pattern here where the primary aspects of the gospel are being ignored or pushed aside for the peripheral. As for the issues listed, what Biblical text lends you to believe that they would be significant to Jesus? After all, Jesus didn’t even bother to mention fighting against slavery, and were that still going on today, don’t you think that would be more important than protecting the environment? Instead, Jesus seemed to focus on repentance (Mark 1:15), caring for the downtrodden on an individual level, following God with your heart, etc.

I see the Bible changing, I don’t see it as stagnant. So for us as a community of Christians to say you need to believe this one thing and hold it tightly and make sure it is never questioned. That’s a real waste of energy with all things we could be doing in the world. - Unidentified woman

To me this is the silliest and possibly most troubling quote in the video. Two things. One, why is the Bible changing now when it seemed to not be changing when Jesus walked the earth? After all, didn’t Jesus constantly refer back to thousand-year-old Scriptures to correct people? Did Jesus think they were changing? Perhaps I misunderstand; what exactly about the Bible is changing? Second, here we are again, protesting an exaggeration of the truth and not understanding what the Scriptures teach. After all, didn’t Jesus spend a monumental amount of his energy correcting people’s wrong ideas and making sure that they believed correctly? Does not Titus 1:11 say that false teachers “must be silenced”? Or 2 John 1:10 inform us that we are not to welcome false teachers into our homes?

We deal injustice happening around us and within us. It’s that sense of entering into the mess and being okay with the fact that we’re pretty screwed up in actuality. - Unidentified woman

At what point do we leave the mess behind as a community of believers and “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect?”

I have no agenda to grow and convince people of things that they don’t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind, and loving thing you can do; to go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope-producing for people who are already disturbed and hope that there is another option. - Pagitt

Perhaps something else was meant here, but isn’t this the EXACT OPPOSITE of the gospel? By this definition, wasn’t Jesus very ungracious, unkind, and unloving when he told the rich young ruler that he had to sell all of his possessions to make it to heaven? After all, the young man obviously didn’t want to be convinced of that. Would you say that your church is more for pre-Christians who want to dabble on the edges of Christianity, trying it out for a season before deciding whether or not to stay with that religion, instead of Christians who are looking to grow deeper in their walk with the Lord?

I am genuinely interested in answers to these questions. Hopefully, via the comment section, this can initiate some good discussion regarding this article and video. Ultimately, my interest is not to aim “friendly fire” onto fellow believers, but that Jesus and His holy Word would prevail.