MacArthur rips Emergent Church
December 12th, 2006Dan Kimball, one of the cogs in the Emergent Church wheel, has responded to a cricitism of the EC by John MacArthur.
Hat tip: Tony
31 Responses to “MacArthur rips Emergent Church”
Tim Ellsworth
My book
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Joel Maners on Just a man with an ego: This article reminded me of...
- Adam Winters on Just a man with an ego: But for the record, I think...
- Adam Winters on Just a man with an ego: Tim, I don't think we are...
- Bill Nettles on The audacity of vanity: McCain: Knows he has...
- Cineaste on The audacity of vanity: More education contrast, this...
- Marilyn on The audacity of vanity: Oh, but Obama has two very, very...
- Lisa M on Just a man with an ego: I grew up a pastor's kid. But my...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but MacArthur sounds like my (92-year-old) grandma trying to describe the inner workings of an iPod.
I have no problem with people criticizing the likes of McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, etc. - I have major issues with them myself. But I can understand why Kimball was upset when he saw his name on MacArthur’s website lumped in with all of the Emergent Village people. And I can see why it upset him that MacArthur lumped everyone else who identifies with the emerging church - which includes theological conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler - in the same category as well. It make MacArthur look like he hasn’t done much research, and is simply jumping on a hot topic to sell some books.
I agree, Peter. While reading much of Kimball’s response, I couldn’t help but thinking that he sounded like Calvinists do when they have to defend themselves against so many misrepresentations and outright lies (see here for just one example of these misrepresentations).
It’s one thing for MacArthur to criticize, as I think there is much to criticize. But I think you have to represent the position fairly, and I don’t know that MacArthur has done that.
I agree. I might go one step farther and say that MacArthur doesn’t have the slightest clue of what he is talking about.
I’ve heard the term, and read a little background via Wikipedia, but could someone give me more background on the “Emergent Church”? What is the big problem? Wikipedia listed Rob Bell as member of this movement. I’ve watched the NOOMA videos, and really liked them. Is there something I’m missing?
I’ve read some different things. Here’s one that I have not finished yet:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church
I think that if John MacArthur has issues with anything, it would be wise to sit up and take notice. There is no theologian living who has done more to further the cause of Christ on a practical basis than John MacArthur. I have the highest respect for him. Several years ago, a pastor told me that in 100 years, pastors will talk of MacArthur the way people talk about Spurgeon today. I have never known him to act or write out of selfish ambition or for financial gain. If he writes it, it is because he believes it. And if he is wrong, he will readily admit it and repent of it.
Please, a little respect for this Christian statesman.
Most of you are probably too young to remember, but Dr. Mac has spent a lifetime debunking the current trends in evangelicalsim, whether it be the Chrismatic movement or the easy-believism movement. This just happens to be the next wave. I find the letter references to be somewhat vague. Hopefully he will back up his generalizations in the forthcoming book.
While I have a ton of respect for MacArthur, it is possible for him to be wrong. Even though his name is on a study bible, he’s still mortal. I heard MacArthur go off on only singing songs that are in the hymn book about 5 years ago. Didn’t agree with that assessment either.
I thought Adrian Rogers was a gem, too. But I couldn’t stand to hear him preach on the doctrines of grace….he just didn’t get it.
T Miles is right…let’s wait for the book before we pass judgment on those passing judgment.
You’re all dead wrong!! Sorry. I just felt the urge to pass judgment on those passing judgment on those passing judgment.
This from a guy yet to read Romans.
The trouble here is that MacArthur is taking issue with something that he clearly has a limited understanding of. Perhaps that will change as he does more in-depth research on the emerging church for his book, and if it does I’d be more than happy to listen to him. In the meantime, he was wrong to associate Dan Kimball by name with various forms of heresy, and there’s absolutely no problem with saying so.
Of course MacArthur can be wrong. He is a human being. Unlike many modern theologians, however, he has publicly admitted being wrong about certain points of doctrine in the past, even things he has written about.
He is not wrong about the hymn issue. I have heard and read much of what he has said about it, and he is spot on. Much of what is being churned out of Nashville in the name of worship music or Christian music is weak, both doctrinally and musically. Its not all bad, and he will admit that. But there is so much doctrinal instruction in the old hymns, and that is what he prefers.
To say that he has a limited understanding of the emerging church movement is to seriously underestimate his intellect. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would not be surprised if he knows more about it than even those who are neck deep in it, because he never forgets anything he reads. He has this amazing photographic memory–names, faces, stories, verses, whatever. I’ve never met anyone who has as strong a capacity to recall information. So if he is writing about this topic, be assured that he has done his research. Will he be right? We’ll see when the book comes out.
I wrote a song several years ago based on Ephesians 6 and the armor. I wrote it to the tune of a hymn that is in the hymnal - Trust & Obey, Am I wrong to sing it in church congregationally?
And what specifically has Dr. MacArthur recanted of his writings?
I have been watching this “conversation” from the sideline since it was first posted and some of the comments here are way out of line.
The facts are that John sent out a letter that introduced a CD interview that he conducted with Grace to You Executive Director, Phil Johnson. If the letter was all that John had said about the Emergent/emerging movement then I too would question some of the statements…but it’s not. In fact, in the story linked here, Kimball continues to rant against the letter although he has been corrected more than once that it was not to stand on its own.
MacArthur was also part of a faculty lecture series at Master’s Seminary on the larger subject almost a year ago (which will be published in an upcoming journal series). One may quibble with his results and views but please don’t accuse the man of not knowing his subject matter. He is a thoughtful and articulate spokesman for the gospel so linking him with “my 92 year old grand ma” is probably not the best way to carry on a discussion if you have serious disagreements with him. All I see here is hear-say and gossip.
As for the comments about his music preferences (though off-topic) they are not true. One can read his book “Fool’s Gold” and get a good understanding of his thoughts on the subject. Also as a former member of his church and minister on his staff, I can assure you that we had wonderful music and we sang songs all the time, not found in the hymn book. So you can put that rumor to rest. In fact, the first place I was introduced to Sovereign Grace music was at GCC.
TMiles asked what he has changed his mind on. I would say he has further developed his theology on many things in his forty years of preaching but you can start with the issue of the eternal sonship of Christ as an example.
Blessings brothers,
Paul
I don’t know every instance, but one I am aware of is where MacArthur recanted his early teachings on the second coming. He was seminary trained in a school that holds to a certain set of ideas, and in response to that, and in a little rebellion against his dad’s teachings, he held publicly to a certain set of ideas, then later publicly admitted that he had been wrong. Was that ambiguous enough?
There is a website that has placed transcripts of all of John’s QandA sessions he does at his church (which are great, btw), and someone asks him about areas where he admitted he had been wrong. He is very open about them.
As for the song you wrote, it doesn’t matter to me. Heck, I’d sing Lyle Lovett songs in church if they’d let me. My question would be, is Trust and Obey public domain, or did you pay royalties to use it?
Whew! I feel much better now. Now I can lead my song with confidence again. Thank you, Paul!
Hey, Jason, the song is in public domain and thanks for asking.
Here is but the chorus of it (I won’t saddle you with all four verses)
Safe and kept pure
For our vict’ry is sure
When we pray in the Spirit
Wear the Armor of God
So I just read an article on CNN.com about a church that Jim Bakker’s son has started in Atlanta. After reading it, I’m beginning to kinda see the potential for problems with the Emergent Movement.
Here’s the link…
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/13/apontv.onepunkundergod.ap/index.html
I love that song. It was one of my first introductions to “Sunday night hymns” when we first became Baptists. I sometimes miss those songs.
I like the chorus! It works. But let me ask you this: is our victory sure only if we pray in the Spirit? Or is our victory sure no matter what?
I’m being picky, but I remember a conversation with a friend who was really mad because the hymn writer said, “He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today, He walks with me and talks with me, along the narrow way. He lives, He lives, salvation to impart. You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.”
The problem she had was that He doesn’t JUST live within our hearts, He lives, period. But period doesn’t rhyme with impart.
So songwriters have a double problem. You have to rhyme AND get it right theologically. Otherwise, it just doesn’t sound good.
TMiles said “Whew! I feel much better now. Now I can lead my song with confidence again. Thank you, Paul!”
Did you mean for this to sound arrogant? I guess I missed your point. Do you talk to people like this when not behind a keyboard?
Blessings to you,
Paul
Jay Bakker’s church sounds interesting. I’d like to hear more about it.
I didn’t see in the article, though, where it is lumped in with the Emergent Church. I don’t think just because Bakker’s church may (or may not) share some characteristics with the EC, we should automatically label it that.
“What is truth?”
Bakker’s thing sounds kind of funky to me. I remember back in the 80s, when Jim and Tammy Faye were in their hey day, and the pictures of Jay were comical, almost like a caricature. Typical 80s hair, pastel sweaters, all that.
Seeing him now, with the tats and the studs and all, it makes me wonder if its not all just a big act, kind of like when Alannis Morrisette was so popular for being an against the grain kind of songwriter, then someone produced a video of her in her early days, and it made her look like a sell out who would say or do anything just to gain popularity. I’m not passing judgment on Jay as far as his relationship with Christ, just his approach to success.
Brother Paul,
You said, “linking [MacArthur] with my 92 year old grand ma is probably not the best way to carry on a discussion if you have serious disagreements with him.” I agree with you.
Yet isn’t this “broad stroke” mentality exactly what MarArthur has imposed on Kimball?
MacArthur blacklisted the guy without ever meeting him in person or allowing him to articulate his personal ministry paradigm (if I read the article correctly).
Regards.
Tony,
As I said in my comment above, the single letter that Kimball referenced is not MacArthur’s only interaction with the movement. So MacArthur has not broad-brushed anyone in this regard but then again you can make-up your mind for yourself after listening to the CD, reading his journal article or waiting for his new book to come out.
BTW: Has Kimball not already “articulate[d] his personal ministry paradigm” in his representative articles, sermons and books…not the least of which is “The Emerging Church.” Must he be given a platform beyond these to further clarify himself before anyone questions the veracity of his principles?
I’m not sure I follow your logic Tony.
Blessings,
PSL
Pardon me, Pastor Paul, if I failed to be concise in my remarks.
My only point was that you seemed to brustle at the thought of someone ignorantly lumping Dr. MacArthur into a group of elderly folks without first getting to know the heart of the man.
This appeared to me to be the behavior of which Dr. MacArthur was guilty where Kimball is concerned. That’s all.
Blessings.
You should all be so lucky as to be linked to Grandma Rieke, who happens to be one of the most intelligent, well-read people I know.
Paul, do any of MacArthur’s other interactions with the emerging church do anything to nuance his description of “a movement that thrives on disorganization, lends itself to mysticism, distrusts authority and dislikes preaching, feeds intellectual pride and recognizes few (if any) doctrinal or moral boundaries”? It seems to me that he’s only interacting with the extreme liberal branch of the EC and not other, more conservative branches, which aren’t anything like the above description. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the definition of painting with a broad brush. Your line of argumentation here seems to be that we shouldn’t evaluate MacArthur’s take on the EC based solely on the quotes in Kimball’s article. That’s fine, but if his other material addresses different parts of the EC more specifically, drawing distinctions between a Brian McLaren and a Mark Driscoll for example, does not the above the above quote look even worse?
Peter,
I think you will find “nuance” to his position. In fact you can see an eight part series he and Phil Johnson did here:http://www.sfpulpit.com/.
What’s going on here is the classic problem with labels. Certain individuals use the various declensions of “emerge” but when linked with outspoken adherents of the same language they cry, “we’re not like those emergents.” Here’s a novel suggestion: stop calling yourself “Emergent/emerging/emergent,etc.” if you find yourself constantly having to define yourself out of it.
Even Mark Driscoll (since you brought him up) has had to backtrack away from things he was saying just a few years ago. As many have pointed out, I think the movement at large (whatever it is) has been helpful in identifying some major issues and problems with the broader evangelical landscape. My opinion, as one who has interacted with many who consider themselves apart of the emerging church, is that it has brought no unique contributions to the table. What is often labeled as fresh thinking really isn’t and what’s typically called “relevant” is only so to a few sub cultures. At any rate where the gospel is preached I rejoice with thanksgiving.
Blessings,
PSL
“At any rate where the gospel is preached I rejoice with thanksgiving.”
Amen, Pastor Paul, amen.
Paul,
I now realize how glib I sounded and for that I am sorry.
Jason asked if we have vic’try ONLY when we pray in the Spirit. Well, I know that prayer is vital to spiritual warfare. That to my understanding is how we put on the armor. Without the armor, we are vulnerable to attack and spiritual/moral failure. Theologically the vctory is won on the cross/empty tomb. Ona practical day to day level, we need victory over the flesh, the world and the devil and prayer is key to that, to my understanding.
Funny, you bring up “He Lives!” One of my Moody professors hated that song with a passion and refused to sing it in class.
Paul,
I am no musician. The song was a one time lark for a class I was taking. I’m just a poor preacher languishing here in Indiana, getting starved out by disgruntled congregants. Pray for me - and them!
What’s going on here is the classic problem with labels.
Agreed, but the proper response isn’t to drop the label. I’m not going to stop calling myself an evangelical just because my non-Christian coworker puts me in the same category as Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn and other assorted crazy people.
All I’m asking for here is a little more clarity on who and what specifically MacArthur (any others criticizing the ec) has a problem with. Chapter and verse. If you want a template for this, take a look at John Piper’s vigorous response to Open Theism - directed at specific people, citing specific examples from their writing and speaking. Hopefully MacArthur’s forthcoming book (cool rattlesnake, btw) will go that direction.