The Emergent Church

Last week, I saw this message from our missionaries in Prague, Czech Republic: Misha and Zachariah Harrad.

Misha: Hi Ocean Side Christian Fellowship. We are Misha and Zachary Harrad, and we have the privilege of serving here in Prague, one of the most breathtakingly beautiful cities in the world. Beneath all the beauty, there's a deep spiritual darkness. Most people here have never met a true follower of Jesus, and we long to see the city flourish through gospel renewal.

Zachary: One of the ways we see that renewal happening is here at the table, our table. Throughout the gospel, Jesus was always going to come from or at a table.  Jesus submitted ways was the original foodie. He set tables where people were seeing her and their lives were transformed, and he's still doing that today, calling us to follow his lead and set tables where people's lives will be changed in their country.

Misha: And that's the heart of Kolem Stolu which means “around the table.” Our vision is to set a table in every neighborhood of Prague where Jesus is the host.

Zachary: At these tables people find refuge. They experience the gospel through relationships they start asking questions about Jesus and together we read the Bible in simple and reproducible ways what starts as a meal eventually becomes a discovery Bible study and then that Lord willing becomes a table or a micro church and Lord willing this will result in a movement of tables or micro churches multiplied as people grow and their love for Jesus and their neighbor.

Misha: Because when Jesus is the host, the table becomes more than a place to eat. It becomes a feast, obviously a refuge, an altar, and a voyage.  It's where broken people find healing, where skeptics encounter grace, and where the Kingdom of God takes root in the city.

Misha: We've seen that people come to the table through different relationships than in different ways This is why we think of KolemStolu stone as having three different circles. There's the wider table network our people that we have touch points with throughout the city are beginning a relationship with, and our hope is to move them to the next circle through a wider table event each month like pizza nights like October Fest or Thanksgiving or having fun events for our kids and their classmates and their parents where people can encounter community who would never step foot in a church and that leads people to that middle circle the table community gathering and while we're there we could begin to walk deeper with them and form deeper relationships through smaller gatherings one-on-one conversations walking with them through life and as they explore their faith and eventually our prayer is that the discovery Bible study would take them to the table fellowship and that's where we invite them to this discovery Bible study where they begin to encounter Jesus in his word and over time these tables become micro churches.

Misha: But our work doesn't stop there we are all story-informed people shaped by the stories we live in and when we encounter Jesus we don't just hear a new story the other story reformed by his grace

The Emergent Church is a movement that seeks to minimize the exclusivity of Christ

Notable Figures:

— Brian McLaren - has shaped must of the movement’s early thought

— Rob Bell - former pastor and author of Love Wars

— Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt

John MacArthur

Brian McLaren who is the lead writer on the Emergent church has a new book entitled, The Secret Message of Jesus

In the age of global terrorism and rising religious conflict, it is significant to note that all Muslims regard Jesus as a great prophet. That many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine. That many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people and that Jesus himself was a Jew.

— Hey, he is saying, isn’t it great? We all like Jesus

A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue. And it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue.

— So we will set aside all of our doctrinal differences and let all people go to hell.

John MacArthur

Brian McLaren - talking about the doctrine of Hell:

A lot of arguments happen among religious and non religious people about the question of who is going to heaven or hell. A lot of times Christians get into this argument by saying we have the only way to heaven. And people often ask me what do I think is the way to heaven? I have a problem when they ask me this question because it assumes that the primary purpose of Jesus coming and the primary message of Jesus was about how to get to heaven.

Now, I think this is an important question. The mortality rates are still pretty high. What happens to us after we die is very important to all of us. And I think that the answer that the Christian faith gives as to how to get to heaven is a person gets to heaven not by being good enough, not by being smart enough, rich enough, not by your opinions. Our only way ever to be accepted by God is by God’s love, God’s grace. And that’s something we can’t earn or achieve. We just receive it and believe.

Don’t think that Jesus’ primary message is how to get to heaven.

— This is a bizarre assumption

— This is so twisted

— This is a typical ploy to knock people of their balance

— Jesus said, I have come to seek and save the lost (Lk 19:10) after meeting Zacchaeus climbed the sycamore tree to see Jesus, considered a sinner by society

— He came on a rescue mission

— He died on the cross to pay in full the penalty of our sins

— And satisfy the justice of God (propitiation)

— He didn’t come to fix life here

— He didn’t come to eliminate poverty, slavery, injustice

— He didn’t come to bump people up 5 notches on the marriage satisfaction scale

— He came to save us from eternal hell

— Understand the life is like a vapor, steam from a coffee cup

— Eternal is forever; when we realize that, it is clear how silly it is that Jesus would fix something in someone’s life that is just a moment, a vapor

— Brian McLaren says:

— He says that he’s not sure anyone has ever gotten the gospel right

— He says he’s not sure what the bible teaches about homosexuality and a lot of other things

— So we have to work with what we got and what we have is a world with a lot of pain and suffering

— And Jesus came to fix the world

— Look at the life of Christ

— He never fixed the world that He came into

— He never assaulted one social institution of His day

— The emergent church: let’s move away from theology, sin from those things that relate to eternal life; let’s talk about fixing the world

— No hunger for understanding the truth

— These people are either carnal, worldly or not Christians

— To say that get to Heaven by God’s love and grace is generic

— MacArthur sat down with the Mormon church (BYU) and they said the same thing!

— He said, “How does that work?”

— They said, “You earn your way to heaven. But isn’t it gracious of God to let you do that”

— Brian McLaren and his theological clones, Rob Bell, have successfully deceived millions of people into believing a false and damnable gospel of inclusivity.

— Brian McLaren believes and teaches that Christ is not the only way to Heaven and that all religions have something to bring to the table when it comes to having access to God

A New Kind of Christianity

McLaren’s view of Scripture not as the authoritative Word of God, but as a series of biased human interpretations of God’s revelation, leads to the destruction that has now amassed on the Church at large. Much of McLaren’s ideas of the Emergent Church have infiltrated mainstream Evangelicalism. Even the current woke movement in the Church–through Critical Race Theory–has embraced the notion that special interpretive power should be afforded to those with diverse “experiences” in life. We should not seek to understand the Scriptures in the manner intended by the original authors, rather we should seek to re-interpret the Scriptures through our own experiences and the experiences of others around us, discarding any objective truth.

The gospel of Brian McLaren largely becomes a gospel of social justice and activism that seeks not to save the souls of the lost, but to build a man-made Utopia on Earth made up of progressive ideals such as financial equity, social contracts, and the absence of objectivism that people may find “offensive.”

From Rick Cambra - Elder at JOF

What is the emerging church.

The Emerging Church is a diverse and decentralized movement within Christianity that began in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It seeks to engage with contemporary culture and rethink traditional Christian practices and beliefs in light of postmodernism. Because the movement is not monolithic and includes a variety of perspectives, beliefs about sin can vary significantly among those associated with it. However, there are some common themes in how the Emerging Church approaches the concept of sin:

    Relational Understanding of Sin: Many in the Emerging Church emphasize sin as a relational issue rather than merely a legal or moral transgression. Sin is often understood as anything that disrupts or damages relationship —with God, with others, with oneself, and with creation. This approach tends to focus on the consequences of sin in the context of community and relationships rather than just individual moral failure.

    De-emphasis on Original Sin: While traditional Christian doctrine often emphasizes the concept of original sin—the idea that all humans inherit a sinful nature from Adam and Eve—the Emerging Church tends to place less emphasis on this doctrine. Instead, they might focus more on the idea of "original blessing" or the inherent goodness of creation, seeing sin as a reality but not the core identity of humanity.

    Holistic Approach to Sin: The Emerging Church often adopts a holistic view of sin, recognizing not just personal sins but also systemic and structural sins. This includes social injustices, environmental degradation, and economic inequality. Sin is seen as something that can be embedded in societal systems and structures, not just individual actions.

Contextual and Cultural Sensitivity: The Emerging Church is often very concerned with being relevant and culturally sensitive. This extends to their understanding of sin, where there is a tendency to be wary of overly rigid definitions or moral judgments that may alienate people or fail to engage with the complexities of contemporary life.

    Emphasis on Grace and Restoration: There is generally a strong emphasis on God’s grace and the restorative power of Jesus. The Emerging Church often focuses on reconciliation, healing, and the possibility of transformation, rather than solely on punishment or guilt associated with sin.

In summary, the Emerging Church's understanding of sin is often more relational, less focused on legalistic or traditional doctrines like original sin, and more concerned with the broader social and systemic implications of sin. It emphasizes grace, restoration, and the importance of addressing sin in a way that is relevant to contemporary culture. D. A. Carson

The concept of the emerging church started about 20 years ago

— It crystalized a lot of perceptions that are much broader than the original founders of the movement ( Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt)

— Today it is a movement but most of the people in it don’t want to call it that, rather a conversation

— The movement is very broad, hard to analyze and generalize

— They see themselves as the shape of the church to come because a new culture is emerging

— Most people in the movement see it as reacting to two forms of churches

— The traditional church — churches are out of reformation, concerned with creed and truth (their definition)

— You have to believe before you can belong

— Less strong on relationships

— Very strong on doctrine

— Over against seeker sensitive churches — professional, slightly entertainment oriented, out of touch with the new generation of post-moderns (their definition)

— Smooth in presentation

— Not relationally very good - from the front to the crowd

— Not participatory and relation orientated

— How this movement is different

— Instead of focus on linear thinking, truth, doctrine

— Focus on experience

— The various modes that go into learning such as friendship, experience, feelings

— More emphasis on inclusion than exclusion

— Most people would say, “Rather than believing to belong, you belong in order to believe”

— You don’t make sharp distinctions between who is in and who is out

— You welcome people into your circle

— People become friends and people get to know you there is almost an osmosis as to what it means to be a Christian

— Some versions of the emergent movement has confessionalism others less, but a heavy emphasis on integrity of relationships, friendships

— People become Christians almost by osmosis

— You never want to exclude someone from the Lord’s Supper because they might meet Christ there

— But what about the warnings in 1 Cor 11 - they would reply that they are already damned if they are not Christians

— Is the emergent church a good or bad thing? That is the heart of the debate

— Some praiseworthy features of the emergent church

— They are trying to read culture - like the Seeker Friendly movement before them

— 2nd they are missionary minded — the question is how do you communicate the gospel?

— 3rd, there is push for authenticity — haven’t some of us gone to church and wondered where God was?

— Haven’t we sometimes gone to church and not felt like they met with God

— But measuring authenticity is a tricky thing and very subjective — what does the bible itself mandate for corporate worship

— 4th questioning tradition

— Not a bad question to ask “What is the church doing, not mandated by Scripture, to communicate the gospel”

— Some of the dangers, weaknesses, inconsistencies of the emergent church

— The movement does not understand very well the contemporary discussion of post-modernism

— Postmodernism questions absolute truth, argues that we are shaped by human experience, everything is subjective, and that language is not fixed and open to interpretation

— The emerging people are talking about “hard” postmodernism such as deeply suspicious of absolute truth which is out of touch

— The movement does not understand modernism very well which is says that truth can be discovered through reason, science and logic, and was a response to industrialization and WW I

— The movement has a hardened view of modernism which can’t say anything good about modernism

— Modernism thinks is absolutes, thinks in certainties, modernism gave us two world-wars, racism, hate, and on and on...

— Postmodernism, on the other hand, is making us more tolerant, is more flexible, inclusionary and is basically good

— Those in the emerging church movement have not thought through what needs to be challenged in postmodernism

— In the reformation the leaders saw what was going on in the church and saw the distance between scripture and practice

— In this movement the leaders sees the changes going on in the culture and are trying to get the church to adapt to the culture

— The postmodern movement needs to listen to what Scripture actually says on scores of issues

— Leaders like McClaren say that you can’t speak about the bible story as being a meta-narrative (which is the taking any story in the context of the entire bible)

— OT writer Walter Brueggeman is renown for interpreting scripture without regard to context. An example of how he would interpret Genesis 3 according to D.A. Carson

There is an Old Testament scholar by the name of Walter Brueggemann. He is a very interesting writer—it is almost impossible for him to be boring. One of his key approaches to biblical narrative is to interpret a particular story only within its own context, without referencing the broader biblical framework.

For example, if he is interpreting Genesis 3—the account of the Fall—he does not want to consider it within the framework of Genesis 1 and 2 or Genesis 4 through 50, let alone in the context of the Pentateuch or the entire biblical canon. He wants to interpret Genesis 3 entirely on its own terms.

Of course, as soon as he does that, new interpretive grids become possible. This is one of the reasons why he is such an engaging writer—he constantly presents new and interesting perspectives. His ideas make you pause and think: “Oh, could that be right? Does that make sense? Could that be true?” His work is innovative, which makes it compelling.

The trouble, however, is that many of his innovative interpretations would not hold up once you place the story back within the larger biblical narrative. Take Genesis 3 as an example. If you remove it from Genesis 1 and 2, and from the rest of the biblical story, it can read as a story about a cranky, restrictive God who is ultimately forced to admit that Eve did the right and courageous thing. After all, she knew that eating the forbidden fruit would make her "like God, knowing good and evil." Even God acknowledges this in the chapter: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

In this reading, the serpent was telling the truth, and Eve made the right decision—it was a moment of growing up into fuller moral self-awareness and independence.

It's an interesting interpretation, isn't it?

However, this reading becomes much harder to sustain when Genesis 1 and 2 come first. In those chapters, we are told that God made everything good. When He saw all that He had made, He declared it “very good.” He created human beings in His own image, which means they were already endowed with responsibility, accountability, and a unique status as His creatures. He forbade only one thing—disobedience to that command was not an act of wisdom, but a denial of their creaturely status. It was rebellion.

Then, in Genesis 4, we see the first fratricide—Cain murders Abel. In Genesis 5, we find a genealogy with a repeated refrain:

"So-and-so lived so many years, begat so-and-so, lived so many more years, and he died. So-and-so lived so many years, begat so-and-so, lived so many more years, and he died…"

"And he died, and he died, and he died, and he died, and he died."

You would have to be blind not to see the connection between Genesis 3 and Genesis 5. Then comes the flood—judgment. Then comes Babel—more wickedness.

Eventually, you are going to tie this canonically to Romans 1:18–3:20, aren't you?

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all manner of unrighteousness, which unrighteous people have unrighteously pursued, suppressing the truth in their wickedness."

Walter Brueggemann takes this approach to the Old Testament partly because he rejects the idea of a biblical metanarrative.

Metanarrative is to narrative what metaphysics is to physics—just as metaphysics provides the framework for doing physics, metanarrative provides the big story that connects all the little stories. It is the overarching story that explains and unifies all the smaller biblical narratives.

Despite some exceptions, many leaders in the Emerging Church movement are deeply suspicious of metanarrative. They have been influenced by thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard, the latter of whom speaks of “incredulity toward metanarratives.”

For these scholars, metanarratives are too controlling—they diminish human autonomy. There is no place where one can stand outside them, free from their influence. Lyotard himself was not trying to overthrow the Bible—he was largely unaware of Christianity and did not care about it. His goal was to overturn modernism, Kantianism, and other totalizing systems.

However, Brian McLaren and others in the Emerging Church movement have adopted this postmodern stance, arguing that the Bible cannot be understood as a metanarrative. Instead, they encourage highly creative, personal interpretations of each individual story—but does that approach do justice to the Bible?

I want to say as dogmatically as I can:

You cannot faithfully understand the biblical stories unless you place them within the overarching metanarrative—the "super-story" that connects them all.

The Bible presents one unified story—the grand narrative that moves from:

God’s creation

The Fall

Judgment

The rise of Israel

The establishment of the covenant

Prophecy and fulfillment

The coming of Christ

The birth of the Church as the international community of God's people

The consummation of all things

This entire story is the framework through which all biblical narratives must be understood. It is the grid that gives meaning to the individual parts.

If you lose this metanarrative, you open yourself up to endless distortions and misinterpretations.

— They don’t listen to what the bible says in the areas of sin, judgment

— Two or three of the most popular writers ( Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke, Rob Bell) have spoken about Penal Substitution (Christ dying on the cross as a substitute for sinners) as a possible form of child abuse

"Divine Child Abuse" Critique — Steve Chalke famously called penal substitution “cosmic child abuse,” arguing that it portrays God as an angry Father punishing His innocent Son. — The concern is that this distorts God’s character, making Him appear violent and retributive rather than loving and restorative.

Overemphasis on Wrath and Punishment — Critics argue that PSA overemphasizes God’s wrath and punishment while neglecting themes of love, mercy, and reconciliation. — They prefer to see the cross primarily as an act of self-giving love, not primarily as a legal transaction.

Western Legal Framework vs. Biblical Narrative — The Emerging Church often critiques PSA as being rooted in a Western judicial framework rather than the relational and covenantal themes of Scripture. — They argue that biblical salvation is not just about guilt and punishment but about restoration, healing, and new creation.

Alternative Atonement Models Preferred — Many in the Emerging Church favor models like: — Christus Victor – Jesus’ death defeats sin, death, and the devil (Colossians 2:15). — Moral Influence – Jesus’ sacrifice demonstrates God’s love, inspiring transformation (John 15:13). — Participation Model – Salvation comes by being united with Christ, rather than through a penal transaction (Romans 6:4-5).

— There are many biblical doctrines that are slighted by the emerging church

— The wrath of God

— What the cross really means

— What sin is

— These are really at the heart of the gospel

— Instead of calling itself Reformed or progressive, this movement will pick and choose from a broad spectrum

— This is a new tradition based on personal aesthetics

— Truth isn’t important

— Not based on scripture

— It is worth reading the satirical “Emergent Elijah” which gets to the more extreme forms of the emergent church

Comparison of MacArthur and D.A. Carson

MacArthur

Emphasizes absolute, objective biblical truth that must be defended at all costs.

Strongly opposes postmodern influences that question the authority of Scripture.

Calls for Christians to reject cultural accommodation and remain firm in doctrine.

Acknowledges the challenge of communicating biblical truth in a postmodern context.

Carson

While affirming the importance of sound doctrine, he explores ways to engage contemporary culture without compromising biblical authority.

Argues that the Emerging Church’s critique of evangelicalism has some merit but must be evaluated carefully.

MacArthur warns of an outright theological war, urging believers to reject postmodernism and defend biblical truth at all costs.

Carson provides a more nuanced critique, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses in the Emerging Church while advocating for biblical fidelity in cultural engagement.

References

John MacArthur on the Emergent Church part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH1yOmij7Q4&t=204s

John MacArthur on the Emergent Church part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3VNrfJsLI&t=5s

John MacArthur on Brian McLaren and the Emergent Church: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPvmSYbS3ko

False Teacher of the day #35: https://disntr.com//2021/08/06/false-teacher-of-the-day-35-john-macarthur-on-brian-mclaren-and-the-emergent-church/

Cambra, R. (2025, February 16). Thoughts on the emerging church emergent church. Personal letter.

D. A. Carson. The Emergent Church. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojSCjbsbQog

Emergent Elijah. https://davidould.net/emergent-elijah/

Oceanside Christian Fellowship. February 16, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhZUpWj2NA

MacArthur, J. (2007). The truth war: Fighting for certainty in an age of deception. Thomas Nelson.

Carson, D. A. (2005). Becoming conversant with the emerging church: Understanding a movement and its implications. Zondervan.