Over the past couple of weeks, my husband and I have spent a significant amount of time doing homework. The topic? What is this emerging/emergent/postmodern Christianity movement all about? And let me tell you, it's not easy finding straight answers. All this started a couple of weeks ago when a friend from our church fellowship encouraged us all to visit a local church (ubc, where David Crowder leads worship) for the purpose of hearing noted author/pastor Brian McClaren. We were instantly on board; after all, Crowder has blessed up exponentially with his music. But who were we going to hear speak? Now Clint is the official internet guru. Truly it is an art. Most of what he read from McClaren's own articles and interviews seemed right to us. There were a few questions he seemed to skirt around, but nothing really major. I totally support reaching out into communities to reach the lost in fresh ways. I don't have a problem with making spiritual encounters less "churchy" or reaching people where they are. And I must confess that I haven't read his books for myself so a lot of this is coming at me secondhand. Now, we have several friends who have been reading McClaren and some other notables associated with the movement. You can tell because of the common threads and common verbiage that run through conversations with them. There, I did it too; apparently, the word "conversation" is specific to this movement. Some of those I have had discourse with and some of the criticism I have read on the net ( disclaimer: I am not saying all of my friends who have been blessed by McClaren or I can't think of the other dude's name, believe this way.) centers around the idea of throwing scripture out the door, or let me tweak that -- considering scripture purely as narrative. It's just a story. And it must be biased since it was written by a group a people who would naturally want it slanted in their favor. The author of every book, being imperfect, naturally allowed their own misunderstandings to sneak into their writings. This is what I am hearing anyway. At this point, the validity of what Jesus said about Himself is not pertinent to our "conversation." What I am getting at, is that Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. But if scripture is not something we can both agree upon as an authority, I am at a lack for what so say. And some of the messy discussions that ensue regarding atonement and universalism are frustrating to say the least. The other thing that I have not heard much talk about is the role of the Holy Spirit. Reaching out to the world is nothing but empty dead works if they are not being fueled by that in-dwelling expression of Jesus. Again, please correct me about this if you know differently. I am hearing very little of relationship to Jesus ,though His name is not banned or anything, and a whole lot about reaching out to the world (in a "missional" quest to realize heaven on earth.) Again, scripture addresses all this, but if we don't agree to consult it, the discussion's dead. Of course, I am referring to believers who I used to assume would be on this same page. Not necessarily in 2007. I watched a video clip on youtube in which Mark Driscoll, one of the original thinkers of the movement though no longer associated specifically with the "emergent" group, attempts to explain what this is all about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI
All that said, I am excited about going to hear Brian McClaren this Sunday. I am not going to pick apart what he says. Actually, I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say for himself instead of what others have to say about him. My initial thought is that there are a lot of really good qualities associated with this movement, but a huge span of opinions operating within the confines of the group name. I will have a difficult time embracing much of the good stuff unless I can work out the authority of scripture issue. Looking forward to sorting out all the ambiguities with you!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The emerging church is a controversial[1] 21st-century Protestant Christian movement whose participants seek to be like the Christians mentioned in Revelation 3:16 and to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched. To accomplish this, "emerging Christians" seek to deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods to accommodate postmodern culture. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature. The predominantly young participants in this movement prefer narrative presentations drawn from their own experiencesnarratives over propositional, Bible exposition. Emergent methodology includes frequent use of new technologies such as multimedia and the Internet. Emergents communicate in open dialogue rather than the dogmatic proclamation found in historic Christianity. and biblical
Critics of the movement are often conservative, evangelical theologians and pastors who disagree with the movement's embrace of postmodernist philosophy, believing such a worldviewunorthodox theology, relativism, antinomianism, universalism, and syncretism. These critics frequently associate emergent theology with the liberal theology that has historically been at odds with Christian fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Emergent Christians often see themselves as bridging the divide between conservative evangelicalmainline Christianity. The label "Emergents" to describe people who identify with the emerging church is generally used by critics of the movement in an attempt to domesticate the diversity of the movement. This makes mounting critique easier despite the reality that those within the broad emerging church phenomenon do not label themselves as "emergent". leads emergents to Christianity and liberal
12 comments:
Sandy: This is a great post. I have just a few comments. I am certainly not trying to defend everything believed by anyone in the "Emerging Church Movement". Just trying to clarify a few things that might be confusing, based on the research I've done and the stuff I've read about it...
1. The idea of scripture as narrative is a little confusing. The core of that idea is that all of scripture is one unified whole: the story of God working through his people to restore the world. N.T. Wright (big-time bible scholar) has written an incredible article on this subject here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm It is long but worth it. I don't think if you read Wright's article you will be left with the impression that he is throwing scripture out. To the contrary, I think he shows incredible respect for it, believing that it is inspired by God. He deals with it extremely honestly, though, and is not afraid to confront the difficulties presented by scripture head-on. So, yes, some in the Emerging Church Movement say that scripture is a narrative. But not that it is "just a story". I think the Wright article will also help clarify what some say is an author "bias" that comes through in scripture.
2. The atonement issue is also confusing. It isn't so much that some in the Emerging Church Movement deny the atonement. I don't think people question that God dealt with sin through Jesus' death on the cross. What is questioned by some is "penal substitution" - which is the view held by most evangelicals that Jesus had to die to satisfy God's demand that there be punishment for sin. George MacDonald rejects penal substituion in the chapter titled "Justice" in Unspoken Sermons. Incredible stuff. So I would say atonement is bigger than penal substitution, and a denial of penal substitution does not equal a denial of atonement and certainly shouldn't be considered a denial of scripture.
3. I don't think I could even try to say what the emerging churches say about the Holy Spirit. I guess I would suggest (for conversation purposes) that it might be that all good works are "fueled by the indwelling expression of Jesus". Or, put another way, how can we know if a work is "empty and dead" as opposed to being "fueled by Jesus"? I personally believe all good works have eternal value, but I could be wrong! I guess someone who identified with the emerging church stuff might say what we do is at least as important as what we believe.
4. You are right that the emerging church stuff (at least what I've read) doesn't emphasize a "personal relationship with Jesus" as heavily as perhaps the churches most of us grew up in, although I haven't read that anyone denies it either. The focus is more corporate than individual.
5. Mark Driscoll is very critical of a group called "Emergent". This is a small group within the "Emerging Church Movement". This is really confusing. But the things he says about "Emergent" are not true of everyone in the emerging church movement. Actually, I'm not sure they are even true of those within "Emergent". Driscoll (pastor of a megachurch in Seattle) is not really the best authority on emerging church stuff.
6. The Wiki article seems to highlight the negative. Scot McKnight has written a great article about it here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html He is part of the movement, so it is perhaps biased the other way. But he identifies some criticisms and I think the article is quite well-balanced.
Ultimately, it is very difficult to make generalizations about this (or any) movement. It is quite broad, with participants from nearly every denomination you can imagine. And one of the core tenets is the belief that no one has God figured out. So part of the journey is the conversation, and, as with any conversation, the topics and issues and conclusions grow and develop and are considered and re-considered over time as the conversation (and those that are part of it) grow and develop themselves. There is a comfort with disagreement, so it is hard to say everyone that is part of it believes this or that, especially about specific theological issues.
The best description I've read is "Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives." Obviously this is very broad, but that's kind of the point.
Anyway, thanks again Sandy. I hope this helps clarify some things and I'd love to hear the thoughts of others.
Sorry. Both of the links I posted got cut off. But those articles are easily found through Google. The Wright article is called "How Can the Bible be Authoritative?" The McKnight article is called "Five Streams of the Emerging Church".
Sandy - thanks for posting this. I think this is good stuff to talk about.
Mark - I don't know if I can add much else. These are great contributions.
One thing: the emerging church is a little different than other Christian "movements." Most Christian movements are easily identifiable. You can point to churches planted by the founders or established based on the beliefs of the movement, etc. The emerging church is not like this. There is no emerging denomination. There is no official Emerging Church, etc.
I think emerging church really describes different kinds of people and churches, within different denominations and churches that are seeking ways to be the people of God in today's world. Obviously this is very broad. As a result, there are many different expressions. There can be no true single definition. Also, the emerging church is very much a conversation beyond just being a movement. These conversations take place all of over - blogs being a common place for conversation. One thing about conversations is that they go all over the place and thoughts/beliefs can change.
Last thing, Emergent is an organization that considers itself part of the emerging church. McLaren is associated with it and it is primarily about helping the emerging conversation to continue through conferences, local cohorts of people discussing these issues, and through publishing books. It is not a denomination or an association of churches. It has a board leadership of some sort that is represented by a wide variety of denominations and backgrounds.
I am interested in the emerging church because I think there are some people who are part of it who really care about Jesus/God and the Church. They are doing some unique and valuable things in today's world. I want to learn whatever I can from them that might be valuable (just like I want to learn from other groups - house church movement, etc.). I have no commitment to the emerging church. I don't want to "convert" anyone to emerging church. I just want to learn from other people who care about God and his people and the world. I started reading "emerging church" stuff in 2003 but I didn't really know that's what I was doing. I didn't learn much about the emerging church until probably last year. For me, the point has never been about the movement itself. Just like with the house church movement. I have no commitment to that movement either - though I have, and continue to learn from it.
[side note: there is some overlap between house church movement and emerging church. Frank Viola is very interested in emerging church and a supporter of sorts. Viola wrote an article about it that you can probably find via Google]
Here are the articles that have been referenced:
N.T. Wright - "How Can the Bible Be Authoritative"
Scot McKnight - "Five Streams of the Emerging Church"
Frank Viola - "Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge"
By the way, I have some disagreements with the Viola article (and him in general), but I do really respect him and have gained a lot from him. I thought some of you might like to read his perspective as a somewhat critical perspective from someone who is sympathetic to the emerging church and even identifies with it. Viola is a big fan of McLaren and Wright.
Ethan (my son) just opened a fortune cookie that states "The courage to be great lies deep within each of us."
In light of our "conversation" lately I found it to be funny.
Thanks for your insights, Mark and Adam. The McKnight article was very informative. I haven't had a chance to read the N.T. Wright article and so will have to address that later. As far as the atonement issue goes, I think we may be on the same page. My present understanding of atonement is that we are/were separated from God by the fall which left all of us with an unclean sinful nature unable to be in God's presence because it is the antithesis of who He is. God, desiring reconciliation with His creation sent His only son, Jesus, who was without sin (and thus the only acceptable offering) to offer himself as a sacrifice that cleansed us from the grime of the fall allowing us to be in the very presence of our Creator. And so I'm relating the need for atonement to the very core of who God is, not to the need for punishment for all the horrid sins man has committed over the span of time. Does this line up with your understanding or no? I must skip over to that "Justice" chapter and probe MacDonald's mind a little more on this subject.
As far as "all good works having eternal value," I do believe God can use any work to His glory in spite of whether I did it with Him or not; he has a way of redeeming our lives that definitely reflects His mercy. But I still hold to the idea that if I do a "good" work without Him (let each man/woman decide for themselves what that means; I think we all know what that means for ourselves) I believe that to be sinful. And I'll be the first to admit that this sin has a way of popping up into my life at all the most inopportune times and daily.
Did you get a chance to watch the youtube clip from Driscoll? I am aware of Driscoll's bias, but one thing I did appreciate and it helped to show me that there really are distinct groups within this movement, is his dividing of the emerging church into 4 distinct categories. I won't summarize them all here, but he even put the House Church Movement into one category which explains why Viola and Edwards are sometimes associated with the movement. And there was one group which he specifically mentioned who questioned the authority of scripture and believed in universalism etc. Anyway, as both Mark and Adam have stated, there are a lot of different viewpoints within the movement. And generalizations are ill-advised. I especially appreciated Adam's saying that he was not committed to any specific movement, but thought some of the people associated with the movement had valuable ideas to share. I have a tendency to take all or nothing from the books I read. A skill many of us could develop is being able to sift through a speech, a book, a conversation with a brother or sister or stranger at Starbuck's and take away from it what is good without getting sidetracked by what is not.
And Clint, my desire is that the Jesus that lives within our son will give him the courage to be the least. That is true greatness. So on the soccer field Saturday, when Ethan trips over the ball and falls on his face, you might give me a gentle nudge and remind me of Luke 9:48. I will not being thinking of this blog then.
Last, but most definitely not least, may the church commit herself to Jesus Christ alone.
Sandy,
When I see our son on that field with such a gentle heart, that only wants to please us, I am overwhelmed with such the responsibility to "raise him up in the ways of the Lord." It is so in our nature as parents to place expectations on him to be ______. (fill in the blank) Because really , we all know why we want our kid to be the best one. I want my child to play soccer and enjoy himself. And maybe in the process he will learn some self discipline, teamwork, know how to listen, patience, etc. OK maybe I am expecting too much out of the $65.00
Yes, I think we agree on atonement. Although it is hard to talk about something that complex here. The main wiki article on atonement (and the separate articles for each main theory) helped me understand from a historical perspective where those ideas come from. Some of those I agree with (Christus Victor in particular), others I disagree with (penal substitution, satisfaction theory, ransom theory, and others), and some I don't know about.
Mostly I agree with C.S. Lewis, who is quoted in the wiki article to have said "We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at."
Read the Justice chapter soon. I can't believe how passionately MacDonald writes in that chapter. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I appreciate what you are saying about good works. My comments yesterday aren't a complete statement of my beliefs on that subject. I don't want to leave Jesus (or the Spirit) out. But we have categorized and classified for so long that I tend to lean the other way now. So I tend to think we should claim all good works for God, and think he might actually do that himself in the end. Have you read that excerpt from Lewis in The Last Battle where the servant of Tash comes before Aslan? I think there is a lot to consider in that.
I did watch the Driscoll video. And I do think it is helpful. I appreciated that his criticisms were aimed only at the "Emergent" guys, and that he had only positive things to say about "Emerging Church" in general. But it is easy to get confused because of the similarities with the names. So I kind of cringed when I watched it.
Full disclosure: McLaren is part of "Emergent" (the bad guys according to Driscoll). But you might find yourself siding with McLaren on the issues they disagree about, so keep an open mind (I know you will). For instance, Driscoll has described himself as a Calvinist, who believe strongly in the penal substitution view of atonement. Since McLaren does not, Driscoll says McLaren "throws out the atonement". Well, that isn't accurate or fair. McLaren just throws out Driscoll's interpretation of the atonement. McLaren doesn't agree with other interpretations of scripture according to Driscoll. So Driscoll says he throws out scripture. Again, not true or fair. And so on...
I found this more lengthy (but still short) excerpt which contains the Lewis quote I inserted above. Turns out that quote is from Ch. 4 of Mere Christianity.
Lewis on the Atonement
Lewis doesn't buy the penal substitution view either. Not surprising, given MacDonald's influence.
I have found that the harshest criticism of the emerging church comes from Calvinists. In fact, I think Calvinists tend to be the harshest critics of everything (everything that is not Calvinism). Of course, this is a generalization and is just my observation.
MacDonald and Lewis are two of my absolute favorites. Mere Christianity is one of my very favorite books - I think it is very important. I also love Lewis' The Great Divorce which deals with some of the atonement stuff - but in a much different way.
Read the "Justice" sermon in MacDonald. Personally I think it is his most passionate writing - particularly the "I believe" section. I think it's beautiful.
I don't have anything to add to all this, but I'm so glad to be in a group where this type of conversation happens. (Oh--there's that word again!) Thanks, Sandy, for bringing this up, and thanks everyone else for the thought-provoking and enlightening comments.
I'm glad to be in this church/community/christian/life thing with you guys.
Post a Comment