Emergent Theology
I've been hearing a lot more about the "emergent church" lately. Perhaps my ears are more attuned to mentions of it in the media now that I'm gaining an understanding of what it's about. I say "gaining" an understanding because the 'conversation' in which it's engaged tends, as far as I can tell to yield no real definitive answers to truly important questions. You get the kind of answers that a lot of Oprah Winfrey's guests might toss out about spiritual matters.
Largely to me the most recognizable leaders of the emergent church movement display a sort of trajectory theology. They appear to be searching for a progressive change in the way Scripture is applied to our lives. Their way of explaining Scripture seems to center around social change, and their trajectory follows that line. They seem to take Jesus' life and teachings and project that line beyond the teaching and completion of the New Testament, but to where? The tendency is to interpret a direction in which Scripture was headed and carry it through to its final conclusion.
This type of hermeneutica may be what allows for such a liberal view towards homosexuality, abortion, and other hot-button issues within the church. It must also be the way in which emergent church leaders are paving a much broader road to heaven. In their view, Jesus just isn't as necessary any more to take away man's sin, because God is so loving that He just isn't as angry with sin as He used to be.
There are a lot of problems here. What is the final conclusion? How far is the "trajectory" taken? Why are they trying to take the theology past the New Testament conclusion? Is the New Testament conclusion not sufficient? Where does the authority come from to make such decisions?
This type of thinking is dangerous. The Bible contains progressive revelation for mankind, but it finds its conclusion at the close of canon. The emergent church does not, and they are still having a conversation about it.
While social change should be a by-product effect of the growth of Christianity in a society, the ultimate goal of the Christian should be to lovingly do what glorifies God, by helping others to know Him. Where the emergent church is today, is not what it will be tomorrow, and evangelicalism I believe, will end up much more liberal because of it.
2 comments:
Hi David,
I appreciate your concerns about the emergent movement. I share them to a certain degree, although not to the extent of D.A. Carson in his ironically titled book "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church." Unfortnately, despite his brilliance as a scholar, his book reveals a knowledge of emergent churches which seems to be based primarily on secondary sources (eg those emergent thinkers who are self-consciously emergent--that is to say they are white, college educated or higher, disaffected evangelicals, middle to upper class, and getting all the press), rather than direct experience with the wide variety of churches which get no press and are not even aware they are postmodern. He spends most of his time blasting Brian McLaren and his book "A Generous Orthodoxy." Some of his criticism are spot on, if not gracious. Others are simply unfair.
I think there are certain elements of the emergent church where where it might be true that there is a tendency toward a liberal interpretation of Scripture, particularly as it pertains to social justice issues; others where nothing could be farther from the truth. Like evangelicalism or mainline groups, emergennt churches and groups represent a wide swath of theological distinctives, some very conservative, others, what you seem to be calling liberal.
The interesting thing about postmodernism within western culture is not only does it seem to be a post-conservative movement, but also post-liberal. This is why so many are abandoning outright secularism as well as staunch fundamentalism (we're in, you're out if you do not adhere to our second and third tier creeds), and moving over to Buddhism, wicca, new age, among other abberant theologies, as well as into various shades of emergent churches which take seriously the presence of God in the everyday life of believers.
Postmoderns seem to be predisposed to some element of deconstructionism. Im retrospect I have experienced some of this at a few stages in my journey. But that does not imply nihilism; nihilists are far and few between anymore, in fact not even so much in the university--they have moved passed it about ten to fifteen years ago.
The challenge for those of us who minister to people with the postmodern worldview is that we must compassionately help people as they deconstruct what they have always believed (remember, they are going to do it with or without our help) and guide them toward a biblical understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. The good news is that typically they already like Jesus. So to the degree that Jesus shines through us with the manifest power of the Holy Spirit, they will become engaged in an "emerging relationship" with him, hopefully to the point of conversion which flows out of an already blossoming relationship and into life of discipleship.
Blessings,
Glen Woods
Hi Glen,
Thanks for your comments. Very interesting. I have no idea who D. A. Carson is, (laughing here) but I would have to say that one might classify my sources as largely secondary because my information is culled from the media. My experience with other churches is very limited, outside of what they claim to be their foundational beliefs. I know that I'm swimming in a very large pond here.
I have read articles and heard interviews featuring Brian McLaren, but I haven't read any of his books.
I hesitated to write this post, mostly because I have a love/hate relationship with "labels" like the emergent movement, but I guess it has to be called something. I realize that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I know that the Rob Bells and the Tony Campolos and the Brian McLarens are getting a lot of press. Am I concerned about their deconstructionist tendencies and the fact that they are fast moving their followings toward universalism? Yes. Is there a lot that I can do about it outside of this, (blogging) talking with those who talk to me about it, and praying about those who are being misled to believe in a Jesus whose character and attributes are being misrepresented, sharing the Jesus of the Bible with those who are willing and living my life being guided by the Word and in submission to the Holy Spirit? I can't think of anything but I'm open to suggestions.
Another label is Evangelicalism. Today, no one is really certain what that means. If the very conservative part of the evangelical movement has marginalized some people by means of exclusivity, the more liberal element is embracing mysticism, for example, and calling it, "Christian mysticism." While oxymorons can be an amusing pastime, this one alarms me, and it is only one example of the broad spectrum of syncretistic phenomena that are assaulting what I have always understood the Evangelical movement to be. Vigilance in our home churches is very important. I'm by no means a leader in my own church, but that doesn't matter. It would never happen, but suppose someone in my church wanted to start a "Christian yoga" class. Uh uh. I would certainly do everything I could to make sure that never became a reality. Something like that would be an innocuous seeming first step toward the next thing that allowed worldly religions into the fellowship.
I have a good friend who has now been the pastor of a postmodern church for about ten years. He is a gifted man and very nice person. His church is very inclusive. While I think the intent behind the policy is admirable, what it gets down to is this; week after week, month after month, the world was getting invited into that church and it reaped what it allowed to be sewn into it. The sort of dualistic, epistemological worldview that develops is what concerns me more than nihilism, not that nihilism isn't a concern.
I have listened to denominational seminarians (recently) who could not even articulate a soteriological statement. One young student even stated that he was not a Christian. He stated he is a daoist. When asked why he was studying to become a minister in his chosen denomination, he simply answered, "It's a good fit for me." I may live a cloistered little life, but that was simply shocking to me.
All in all, I have to agree with you. People are going to deconstruct the Gospel. They are going to do it whether they are church-goers or not. That is human nature. That's one of the reasons I hate labels. I think they do typically have "a Jesus" they like, but I'm not so certain that they haven't constructed a Jesus they can live with.
Statements like that can get me beat up, and "labeled" a hard-case or a fundamentalist, but I don't think it would be very loving of me to allow folks to keep walking blindly toward a cliff. They question is, how does one open their eyes without making them recoil from the effort? I think what you have said is correct. Jesus, as always, lovingly put forth in the context of our lives lived for Him, and seeking every opportunity to be engaged in the here and now with those who don't know Him is of singular importance.
Thanks for your comments.
God bless,
David
Post a Comment