Driscoll on Emerging and Emergent

Download this article (pdf) now! It’s one of the best articles I’ve read on the emerging church. Check out some of his other notes & resources + the sermon on the emerging church (I haven’t listened to it yet).

Mark Driscoll helpfully traces something of the beginnings of the emerging church, what it looks like now and some thoughts on the future.

He describes 3 different types of churches:

• Church 1.0 is traditional and institutional
• Church 2.0 is contemporary (currently the dominant model in the US)
• Church 3.0 is emerging and missional.

Driscoll doesn’t (nor do I) use the terms “emerging” and “emergent” interchangably. “Emerging” is the broader category describing the variety of groups seeking to engage with postmodern culture, while “emergent” is a group down the liberal end of the spectrum. Over recent years Driscoll has, while maintaining friendship with its proponents, distanced himself from the theology and practise of these churches.

Amongst the emerging missional churches who are thinking through how to engage with a postmodern, post-Christian culture are the relevants, reconstructionists and the revisionists. Driscoll describes each of them as follows:

• Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. (Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Rob Bell – Reformed Relevants look to John Piper, Tim Keller, D.A. Carson)
• Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). (Neil Cole, Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch)
• Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world. (Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt)

In the following quote Driscoll explains what he thinks of each of them:

“If both doctrine and practice are constant,the result is dead orthodoxy, which the Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists are each reacting to in varying degrees. If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy, which is where I fear the Revisionist Emergent tribe of the Emerging church is heading. But, if doctrine is constant and practice is always changing, the result is living orthodoxy which I propose is the faithful third way of the Relevants, which I pray remains the predominant way of the Reconstructionists.”

There are significant theological discussions and debates that are happening right now between the 3 R’s above. (Aside: since lots of theological discourse is happening on blogs, it’s one reason that participating in the blogosphere is far more serious than just a hobby). Driscoll says that the 8 key doctrinal issues being fought are over:

• Scripture
• Jesus Christ
• Gender
• Sin
• Salvation
• The Cross
• Hell
• Authority

Driscoll concludes that in time the emerging conversation will result in different communities (and denominations) having different conversations, with their own Bible translations, magazines, blogs, churches etc… Here’s his final paragraph:

“The only hope is a return to the true gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. The gospel must be unleashed in the world through the Church for the transforming salvation of sinners and their cultures. If the gospel is lost, as I fear it already has been among some Revisionists, then tomorrow will be a dark day for the truth about Jesus.”

Go read the whole article (pdf) from the Criswell Theological Review. The article is from early 2006 – my guess is that Driscoll has probably articulated his thoughts further since then – and I’m also guessing that his sermon on the emerging church will pick up his current ideas and reflections.

1) Is this a fair assessment?
2) Which version of church are you in?
3) What do you think about the 3 R’s?