Changing the Message with the Method

There has been much discussion and controversy over the "emergent movement." I understand that many of the "forefathers" don't like to call it a movement. But I think it's a little late for that. Whether it was their desire to start a movement or not, it has happened. One of the major problems with debating about this "movement" is that there are no concrete confessions or authorities that state what the emerging church actually believes. Yes, Mclaren has written quite a bit on the subject. But Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Dan Kimball - among others - all seem to have their own ideas regarding what they want to accomplish.

But one of the questions that most proponents of the emerging movement have agreed upon is in regards to evangelizing: "How do we reach a post-modern culture with the message of Jesus Christ?" I think that this is a real concern. Being a student, I can attest to the effects that post-modernity is having (has had) upon the college crowd. Truth has become "a strange sort of fiction" (as Greg Koukl mentioned in his recent lecture during STR's Master's Series last month).

I hope we can all agree that the emerging culture needs to hear the Gospel, right? So, how can we, Christians in general, reach generation "e"? Well, the emergent answer is to change the method by which the Gospel is presented; make it more geared toward to the emerging culture's way of thinking. And I think that the motives behind this answer are valid. But the problem that I am seeing is that in the process of changing the method, often times, the message is also being changed.

This is something that simply cannot happen. If we are going to try to reach the emerging culture, one thing we cannot do is change the message. The message is very clear throughout Scripture: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Act 4:12). This is something that we simply cannot compromise. Christians are called to weather the storms and stand in the way of ideological oppostion, all the while boldly proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which, like Him, is unchanging. When new philosophical ideologies arise, the message must stay the same. Our faith does not "rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5). And post-modernity is just that, "wisdom of men." It is a philosophical construct designed to question how knowledge is ascertained. And very often it denies absolute truth.

Granted, modernity was also a flawed humanistic philosophical ideology. I am in no way arguing that reason alone is a viable alternative to post-modernism. For it is by faith that "we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God" (Heb 11:3). But what I am saying is that the message of Jesus Christ will never be accurately preached if it is blended with post-modernism. Truth is something that by its very nature cannot be subjective. There are subjective beliefs. But truth, by definition, is something that is a fact. And either Jesus is "the Truth" or He is not. He left no room for debate.

So while I don't mind the removal of pews, the use of candle lit services, the massive consumption of Starbucks coffee, or the desire for spiritual "conversations," I do find it problematic that the message is sometimes being changed with the method.