Erwin McManus and the Emergent Church

A good friend of mine has been reading a few books by Erwin McManus lately, and has enjoyed them a lot. At his urging, I read Blue Like Jazz by Don Miller, and I'm in the middle of reviewing it. When he started reading McManus's stuff, I didn't know if he was going to be like Miller or what, and from my preliminary observations, though he is considered an Emergent Church leader, McManus seemed to be a decent guy with a strong passion.

I have to admit, I admire his passion for wanting the church to be what Jesus established it to be. He also seems to have a strong passion for God from a couple of glances I've taken at his website. This too is far too uncommon in our time, and he is to be commended for that.

However, there are a few things about him that bother me. Not long ago, I had nothing to talk about concerning him, especially since I haven't read his books. I've been guilty before of over-analyzing someone or something about a person without actually having read the material, and, while a person can get a good idea about a book or ministry from trusted sources, it is most often best to get first-hand information. The other day, I found that information.

Here is a link for an interview with E. M. done by FreshMinistry. I'll be referencing a few things from the article, some good, some not so good.

First, I want to say it is clear that God has done a lot of things in Erwin's ministry. The website records some of the work that he did that was, apparently, shortly after his conversion:

He was convinced that if the message of Jesus was true, it would work in the worst situations, so he focused his efforts among the urban poor. He and his wife Kim worked side jobs to support their ministry among the people no one wanted--drug dealers, prostitutes, the homeless.

I can only commend Mr. McManus for this. It is an awesome thing that God was using him to bring the Gospel to those people.

Yet, there are a couple of things that bother me, like this one:

Every human has God placed evidences within their soul. Postmodern evangelism is extracting those evidences from the soul and show them to them. I say, 'Inside you is a craving you need to listen to.'

I would agree that every human has God placed evidences within them. In fact, Romans speaks to that issue clearly:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

So then, people have some knowledge of God -- but they suppress it in unrighteousness per the inspired text. I'd have to say then that inside a person is some knowledge they are required and commanded to accept and believe, but a "craving"? I'd have to disagree. In fact, the Scripture seems to teach just the opposite:

John 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. (20) For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Scripture indicates that we hate the light of God's goodness, not that we're "craving" it. Of course, God eventually changes His elect so that we do crave God, but those who are pre-regenerate won't be doing it. Mr. McManus's statement and method then can use some adjustment. On to another statement by Mr. McManus (emphasis mine):

“The churches that will cease to exist are not those who are doctrinally errant, but are spiritually errant. You can't get away with it anymore. You can't just talk about what the bible says, you better flesh it out or you are dead.”
“That's what's exciting about the world in which we live. Only the viable church of Jesus Christ will survive, the inauthentic need not apply. I want to live in the world that if the church is not the revolution that Jesus died to establish 2000 years ago it ceases to exist. I want to live in a world where the church has no more crutches, or buffers to guard her from injury. I want a church where a culture no longer protects her. Whenever the gospel enters an environment, it prevails.”

First of all, I wanted to say that I find myself in strong agreement with McManus here, that is, the non-emphasized parts of the above quote. We must not simply talk about what the Bible says; we need to flesh it out, and being inauthentic about it is useless. James says this very thing in different words. Furthermore, I completely agree that the Gospel prevails when it enters an environment. The reason of course is that God works out what He ultimately wills when His Word goes forth.

However, with that said, I find that I disagree with the emphasized parts of his statement that I quoted. Granted, no church will be completely doctrinally perfect. However, that is no excuse for not pursuing it and making it a high priority. We must search the Scriptures, and, when we find areas where we are not in agreement with them, we change accordingly.

There seems to be a strong tendency in those who accept some or all of the label "emergent" to avoid emphasizing doctrine. Sometimes, the word is even seen as a pejorative, and Bible doctrine takes a back-seat to relevance in ministry.

This is surely tragic, and misses a critical reason for using Scripture at all. Furthermore, Paul had a few things to say about those who opposed the doctrines he was teaching. We MUST strive constantly to be as biblical as we can be, rigorously scrutinizing everything we say and do by the Holy Scriptures. Granted, McManus was not saying we shouldn't do that, but they way he said what he did seemed to suggest that being doctrinally correct wasn't very important. The truth is, if we are going to be spiritually authentic, we need to have a standard against which we can measure our level of authenticity and if we are spiritually errant or not! It is not an either/or, but rather, a both/and approach that we need.

One more quote that really bothered me, in response to a question asked of him about what kind of advice he would give preachers who want to minister in the post-modern age:

First, The sermons that are changing the world are the ones where the pastor is real--sharing his journey with the congregation. Second, stop preaching sermons and start telling stories. Third, Break though the pressure to be a great preacher and become a great leader.

Agreed, if a pastor is not real and authentic when he declares the Word of God in preaching, then he's doing a disservice to the text and to the congregation. A pastor should be affected by the text he is preaching. However, here is where the agreement ends, and where I think Mr. McManus is creating a false disjunction, falling into the either/or error, among other things.

Stories can be useful to illustrate what a text is talking about, but if all we do is tell stories and stop preaching, we as preachers have abdicated our responsibility to declare the Word of God. We have substituted our errant, personal accounts for the inerrant Word of God. Tragically, this is already the case in many churches, emergent or not. Most of the "preachers" today seem content to tell amusing stories about themselves or others rather than to deal with the text of Scripture. We need more of the latter, not the former. I've addressed this to a small extent in another post.

Also, pastors should desire to be great leaders AND great preachers; it's a both/and, not an either/or. However, if we should have to make a choice between the two, the Scriptures seem to indicate that being a good and accurate preacher would be more important than being a dynamic leader. You can be a great leader and mishandle the text of the Bible and lead your people into doctrinal error, and subsequently, have a church that misses its purpose of the glory of God. However, even if a man isn't the best of leaders, if he declares the Word of God clearly and accurately, God can and will work mightily in his church. Chances are that He'll raise up other people who are better leaders than himself to serve as elders too.

It would appear then that brother McManus has some of his priorities out of order. Let's not make the same mistake, and pray for his ministry that he wouldn't lose his passion for leading people, but that he would also gain one for sound doctrine and expository preaching so that God would be glorified all the more, and his ministry would be all the more blessed.

For the Glory of Jesus,
David Hewitt