A recent article in World Magazine touts the work of Al Weiss, a top-ranking Disney executive, in raising $300 million for church planting. They have formed a group called VisionUSA, led by a former staff member of Bethlehem Baptist Church where John Piper is the pastor. On board is the theologically conservative emerging pastor Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle. (He calls himself a Bible thumper.) Driscoll founded the Acts 29 Network with a goal to plant one thousand churches in ten years.
It appears to be relatively conservative theologically. The article states, "Though affiliated with the Baptist General Conference (BGC), Vision USA has partnered with a range of denominations willing to affirm the Lausanne Covenant, male eldership, and Reformed theology—most recently aligning with Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City."
Each church planted out of VisionUSA must give 5% of its offerings back to the cause of church planting. Acts 29 churches require 10% last I heard. It is designed to ensure a missions emphasis from the beginning of the church.
It will be interesting to see where this goes. It certainly won't be fundamentalist group, but if the gospel is preached, we should rejoice in that.
I would love to see fundamentalists think bigger about church planting or church revitalization, particularly in urban, big city areas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We've been praying about this for a while at church. It's exciting to see it finally coming about.
Some will criticize us for being affiliated with a Disney executive. Others would note the subtle influence a believer in such a role can have. Notice who produces the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? I don't know if Weiss had any influence there, probably not, but perhaps Disney is not the monolithic force for evil the SBC and some other fundamentalists have painted it as. Perhaps it's just a company, with some good parts and some bad parts.
(He calls himself a Bible thumper.)
Interesting consideration:
The Seattle newspapers consistently call him a Bible thumper, too. I have read several local articles about Mars Hill Church, and the press constantly derides (commends, in my book) Driscoll for his unwavering allegiance to the Bible and his outspoken philosophy that the Bible is relevant in our culture as a reliable and authoritative rule of faith and practice.
Something I wouldn't mind being known for. In the articles, I didn't read any allusion to the words "emergent church." Just Bible this, Bible that. This kook just won't get off the Bible.
Driscoll's connection with the emerging/emergent conversation is somewhat in flux. Wendy has talked to him about him, and apparently he is trying to make a distinction between emerging and emergent. SO far as I have seen (which may not mean much), that distinction has not widely caught on. People from both sides use the terms interchangeably.
In philosophy of ministry, Driscoll seems to have much in common with the emergents. In theology, Driscoll is strikingly different from the emergents.
It will be interesting in the next few years to see how this falls out. Mars Hill made the top 50 list of influential churches, so Driscoll has enough of a voice to sway the conversation somewhat. He is also writing which helps to make his views known. However, I think there is only one book out so far and another one or two in the oven. I am looking forward to seeing what he says in those.
Of course, I am also looking forward to remembering who I loaned my copy of Radical Reformission to. Old age is starting early ...
That's the drawback of neat-o jargon. Sometimes it catches on and highlights a distintion eloquently, but sometimes it serves only to infuriate/turn off the people to the idea of investigating further. (Piper's insistence on certain terms is a case in point, perhaps less of a lightning rod nowadays.) What was it that Barrett used to teach about not sacrificing biblical exegesis "on the altar of niftiness"? Maybe the principle could be adapted for contexts other than hermeneutics.
Well, the problem (as I understand it) is that Mark was instrumental in the beginnings of the emergent movement. Now that a significant portion of the group is heading in a theologically liberal path, who gets the rights to the name? In the end, emerging is about how you interact with culture. There will be emerging liberals and emerging conservatives. I doubt his distinction between emerging and emergent will catch on. But I do think his next book (which is a group of authors debating key points of the atonement) will make a clear distinction between the liberal and conservative branches of the emergent movement.
Post a Comment