One year ago today I posted my “adieu” to the emerging church, a move that brought more attention than I expected. I thought a handful of my Facebook and blog friends would respond and push back and dialogue over drinks and that’d be that. Nope. It struck a nerve, going somewhat viral and garnering tens of thousands of views, 100 comments, and several private emails—not to mention a radio interview! In the end it was a move that set me off on a yearlong journey of discovery: I rediscovered the historic Christian faith, while discovering how Emergent repudiates it.

Here’s how that journey began:

Once upon a time I was enamored by the “I-am-not-a-movement-but-a-conversation” known as the emerging church (In fact, at my seminary I’ve been known as Emergent Jeremy!) Five years ago, I stumbled upon an “emerging” author known as Brian McLaren (even attending his church for a stint). I gobbled-up his “A New Kind of Christian” trilogy because it’s question-asking permissive narrative gave flesh to the phantom that was haunting me at the time: What the hell is this whole Christian thing about?!

Pastor Dan was my doppleganger; Neo my mentor.

Five years ago I entered a period of faith deconstruction (one particular post I wrote that I was fond of at the time was, “10 Ways to Deconstruct Your Faith“) and reconstruction the likes of which I had never experienced in my life. For the first time I was taking my faith in Jesus Christ seriously and asking a whole lot of questions.

These questions were healthy and freeing and opened up a whole new world to explore and enjoy. For this I am grateful to the emerging church conversation of which I’ve been apart for several years. As my relationship with Emergent progressed, though, I began to wonder why it was cool and trendy to disregard Paul, pity the fool who believed in real judgment, ignore the cross, and downplay individual participation in rebellion/sin.

In short: I became uncomfortable and have grown downright tired of the theology that has bubbled-up out of the emerging church. (read more HERE)

Like others, I said goodbye to emergent because of the ideas and theology. While the conversation began more as a missional response to postmodern culture, it took a drastic theological turn 5 years ago. I followed that post up a few days later after receiving several supportive and un-supportive comments with a clarifying post that explained my journey into, through, and beyond the emerging church movement.

At the beginning, from what I remember back in 2005 when I entered the conversation it really was an exploration. Such sites as emergentvillage.org and opensourcetheology.net were catalysts for bursting and burning through the cobwebs and rickety structures of conservative evangelicalism. It tried to root itself in the more ancient, forgotten parts of our faith—like the Creeds—to moor itself while forging ahead with re-imagining the Church as centered around the teachings of Christ and the Kingdom He bore.

Theologically, it was a deconstructive tour de force with it’s crosshairs aimed squarely at conservative evangelicalism, and rightly so. Reconstructively (is that a word?) it helped construct a missional response to a real, genuine shift occurring within Western culture known as postmodernity. Most of the church was ill equipped to deal with the tectonic shifts our culture was undergoing, and Emergent helped navigate those shifts for church leaders as New Tribes Missions does for tribal missionaries. At the time I greatly appreciated and benefited from both, because it intersected with my own faith exploration.

My story follows others, me thinks. Many others have endured similar frustrations before wandering into the oasis-village of Emergent, finding solace, healing, and inspiration from a band of sisters and brothers making a similar trek. There I found what I needed at the time and am thankful for what Emergent was during those years. I absolutely appreciated the theological deconstruction and missiological reconstruction this conversation provided.

Over the past year or so, however, it seems like the later (missiology) has faded and the former (theology) has shifted. I have been struck in recent months by this: now that we’ve gotten the missional response to postmodern culture down, many believe the time for theological construction has begun; we “get” postmodern ministry, now we need an alternative Christian faith built on an alternative Christian theology. So began this new era of theological construction.

I ended it with this:

In short: I’m tired of people being hoodwinked by the “different” theology being pushed and the hoodwinkers getting a pass, especially from those inside. Their version of Christianity isn’t different. It is other. We’ve seen this before, and I think something should be done about it. I guess someone should do something about it, so I’m stepping to the podium.

You may disagree with and decry my method, even my critiques. I’m sure both are flawed. Please grant me one request: deal with the ideas. The Emerging Church is an idea; it pushes ideas. In fact, how about those of you who think I’m whack actually deal with the ideas by giving a reasoned, intellectual defense for the theology that is pushed by Emerging Church Inc.

Yes, thats a direct challenge: Someone, anyone—Steve, Mike, Makeesha, Jonathan, Trip, or Julie, perhaps—please deal with the ideas by posting an 8-10 post theological series on both Doug and Brian’s book explaining why their theology is good and correct. I’ll even host it here, free of charge.

I myself am an ideas person. I’ve got plenty of them strewn about throughout novus•lumen, most having little to do with the emerging church and even less blasting it. The idea I am most passionate about, that is the impetus behind what I do as a pastor and theologian, is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Messiah.

Lord. Messiah.

Both are ideas the New Testament is clear about. Unfortunately, evangelicalism all around seems incredibly confused about both, especially Emerging Church Inc.

Perhaps I can speak into the conversation (especially the Grand Rapids one) by pushing back against emerging church theology and help bring better definition to the contours of God’s Story of Rescue, for the sake of the Church. Perhaps I can follow in the footsteps of J. Greshem Machen, who wrote nearly 90 years prior: “The purpose of this book (blog) is not to decide the religious issue of the day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible.” (read more HERE)

Unfortunately, though I clearly stated otherwise, people thought I was turning my back on the people in this community. I did no such thing. Instead I left the conversation because of its ideas and theology. And so in order to bring clarity to the direction this conversation I spoke (or tried to speak) by dealing with the ideas of two emerging church leaders in particular: Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren.

I spent 8 blog posts unpacking the theology of Doug Pagitt and proving that it is indeed Pelagian, a 5th century heresy that others have only labled Doug without any real scholarship. As a Master of Theology (ThM) student studying Historical Theology I wanted to bring an academic lens to bear on his populist writing in order to show how recycled and otherly his theological musings really are. As my thesis states:

While he may believe he is believing differently—and consequently believe he is offering the world a different Christianity that is more believable than the current form—in reality he is simply believing otherly; the form of Christianity that Pagitt pushes is neither innovative nor different: it is a form of Christianity other-than the versions that currently exist but mirrors those that have already existed. Whether by intention or accident, the Christian faith that Pagitt believes “feels alive, sustainable, and meaningful in our day” is really a form of faith from an other day…In rejecting the versions of Christianity that have prevailed, Pagitt resurrects an other form of Christianity from the past: Pelagianism.

(read the series HERE)

The series generated some good discussion and solidified my own views in the process. I considered it a good contribution to the blogospher as it brought to light academically what many have suspected for years pastorally.

Next, I got hold of Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity , and tried to make my way through it in a similar manner. After reading the book and blogging my way through most of it, the series came to be 8 posts long. I introed the series with this analysis:

In the end, Brian’s McLarenism faith isn’t really about Jesus Christ, but about a vanilla, generalized World-Spirit god that has visited all other religions outside the Christian faith. Like his good buddy, Samir Selmanovic, Brian believes that Jesus and the reconciliation God offers to the world is not found only in the Christian faith (or “religion” as he puts it). In Selmonvic’s book (a book Brian endorsed), Samir says, “We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign.” (It’s Really All About God, 129) Brian agrees.

In fact, it is clear his entire theological endeavor is a concerted effort to “pluralize” reconciliation to God and His Kingdom by divorcing it from Jesus Christ entirely, rather than insisting that reconciliation to both comes through Jesus Christ alone. While Brian uses the “Christian religion” as a rhetorical device to argue against “theo-containment,” the One True God described in the Holy Scriptures is exclusively revealed in the very human, very divine Jesus Christ. It’s really NOT all about God. It’s really all about Jesus Christ.

As Karl Barth reminds us, “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.”(CD II,1:319) There is little evidence Brian believes that the fulness of God’s presence is exclusively in Jesus Christ, that salvation and rescue and reconciliation is found in no other name under heaven besides His.

After Jesus, there is nothing left. And after Brian’s new kind of Christianity, neither is Jesus Christ.

(read the series HERE)

I still believe this is the case, especially after the work I did on a historical theological comparison between McLaren and the German liberal theologian Albrect Ritschl. That work revealed how McLaren’s Christianity is nothing new at all, but rather a repackaged form of theological liberalism that reigned in the early 20th century. His (and many others) is indeed an old kind of Christianity.

It is clear from the past year that many so-called new, fresh Christian voices are offering a faith that is neither new nor Christian, at least the kind that is rooted in and reflects the historic Christian faith. There has been a decided theological turn in the emerging church conversation that rejects historic orthodox Christianity, one that I intend to respond to as often as I can, both as an academic and a pastor.

As a pastor I and a group of others have responded by beginning the process of launching a new expression of the church called Church of the Resurrection . We intend to be a Church community for our postmodern, post-Christian community that is missionally engaging, but also theologically rooted and biblically uncompromising. We recognize there is a postmodern culture within Grand Rapids that needs to encounter the risen Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah in a way that makes sense to them, in their language and customs, yet is rooted in the historic Christian faith and commited to every ounce of the biblical text. We want to hold all three (culture, tradition, and the Text) in dynamic tension by creating experiences where people can explore and find new life together in Jesus Christ.

As an academic I hope to continue to help the Church remain rooted in the historic Christian faith and continue to take the Bible seriously in our 21st century world. First, I am working on my ThM thesis that will trace the development of the Kingdom of God language from Schleiermacher to Ritschl to Tillich to McLaren in hopes of exposing a continuity between modern and postmodern conceptions of this key theological idea. I hope it will aid the Church in responding to these aberrant interpretations of the core of Jesus’ teachings. Secondly, I will begin blogging through Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, one I’ve been told extends the emerging church conversation into universalism—which isn’t all surprising if you’ve followed the trajectory of Bell, beginning with Velvet Elvis. I hope his books (and this effort) will shed light on the theology of Bell, something that’s been a long time a’comin! Finally, I am working on a second book project, one that will respond directly to these thinkers and hopefully help non-Christians and Christians alike understand what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.

All this to say, I believe the past year has been a necessary, even vital part of my theological and vocational development, let alone my spiritual. I have come to more fully understand and appreciate the historic progression of the Christian faith, while also clarifying my own (limited.finite.pedestrian) understandings of it. I have grown more fully convinced of the need for 1) good teaching, teaching that is concerned with both right behavior and right believing and 2) better models of church that create experiences for those outside it to explore and find new life in Jesus Christ. And I have fallen more in love with the loving, merciful, majestic God we find in Jesus Christ, who is the only, single Lord over all creation and Messiah who has come to rescue it and put it back together again.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned this year is that it’s all really all about Jesus Christ.

Because folks, Jesus wins.