The Pre-Something Church (Part 2) - "Where do we go from here?"

In a recent article, Mark Driscoll, [1] founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, explains three categories of emerging leaders that are responding to postmodernism (proposed by missiologist Ed Stetzer). First, “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.”[2] These people see postmodernism as a reality of the current culture that needs to be addressed with the truth in new ways that appeal to postmoderns. This approach is epitomized by ideas like Dan Kimball’s “vintage faith” or Rob Bell’s Nooma video series. Second, “reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). . . . They propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches.”[3] These people are usually reacting to modern churches more than to postmodern culture. In fact, this may be the primary motivation behind many emerging ministries. Their main concern is to adopt new ways of doing church that are more effective at changing lives. Third, “revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world.”[4] For these people, it is more a question of “re-imagining” Christianity than simply re-contextualizing it. They are more likely to adopt a postmodern epistemology to interpret Scripture, calling into question even the most orthodox of beliefs. In effect, they have so internalized postmodern thinking that they now see Christianity in terms of their Postmodernism rather than seeing Postmodernism from a Christian perspective.

From these three categories, Driscoll has suggested some possible responses to postmodernism.[5] “If doctrine and practice are constant, the result is dead orthodoxy.” This is a danger for Modern Evangelical churches who do not adapt as moderns age out of them. “If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy.” This is the unfortunate trajectory of some prominent leaders in emergent circles who are revisionists. If practice is constant and doctrine is changing, as in many liberal Mainline churches, I would suggest the result is dying heresy. Their adherents would remain loyal out of a sense of tradition rather than any commitment to biblical Christianity. “But, if doctrine is constant and practice is always changing, the result is living orthodoxy.” This is the heart of the relevants seeking to communicate the enduring gospel to a new world. After all, as Driscoll reminds us, “the truths of Christianity are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times and places. But, the methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated and therefore, constantly translated.”[6]

The living orthodoxy of the relevant church is what our postmodern world needs. But even this is playing catch-up. It is a race to respond to an already established post-Christian culture, one born out of Christian marginalization. The Church is to be the light of the world. But having fallen behind, the world is racing ahead in postmodern darkness. We must catch up and run alongside those lost ones in need of truth. But we can, and must, do even more. We can light a new path ahead, reclaiming the lead in the shaping of culture. As the salt of the earth, how can we do any less?

It is much like raising a child. Good parents would be aware of and tend to her needs. They would not cater to her every fancy. Instead, they would teach her what is right. As she matured they would give her more and more freedom along with appropriate boundaries. When she reached adulthood they would trust that she will live up to the values instilled in her and pass them on to her children. Not only that, she would make a productive contribution to society. Postmoderns are like that child. A good church will meet their unique needs, but not entertain, or allow them to retain, their relativistic notions. Instead, it will teach sound doctrine and not be legalistic or hold people to unrealistic standards. Then, when the moderns are with us no longer, the postmoderns will be able to faithfully pass on the Teaching and Tradition of the Church to future generations. And they will embody that truth in a redeeming way.


[1] Read Mark Driscoll’s blog at http://theresurgence.com/blog/2.
[2] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 89.
[3] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.
[4] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.
[5] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90-91.
[6] Mark Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” Criswell Theological Review 3, no. 2 (2006): 90.