I think, and this is just my take on what I read and understand personally about the emerging church, that there are two seperate issues in regard to what you’re experiencing: what is happening now and the long-term goal.

 The emerging church seems to be a nebulous term, catching many different thought patterns, and truly defying definition.  There are emerging church leaders who would contradict each other on almost every point.  In general, though, the long-term goal of emerging thinkers seems to be a rise above the limits of fundamentalism.  Modernity ushered in the idea that there are fundamental ideas upon which we build all our conclusions.  Emerging thinkers tend to question many (if not most) of these fundamentals, and find that there is room for enigma and paradox in our thinking, something which fundamentalism and modernity would never allow.

 The current practice, though, tends to be "deconstruction" of the modern ideals.  While emerging thought seeks broader understanding in the end, it currently seeks to show the flaws with current modes of thinking, finding the gaps and the existing paradox in fundamental thinking.  The effect of deconstruction is that it seems to be narrowing ideas while in actuallity, it is trying to show the current narrowmindedness that passes for wisdom.

I label myself as emergent in my theological belief.  I stand for a broadening of the gospel to selfless, agape love.  I stand for a tolerance to alternative ideas and paradox.  I stand for recognizing that, while the Bible is the path to the ultimate truth and that Jesus is the Truth, neither you nor I can ever completely posses that truth, unless we come together in unity (as the Body of Christ).  I stand for realizing that reaching out to those in need is not a mission of the church, but the reason for the church.  I stand for a broadening of practical theologogy and less quibbling over theoretical theology.

 In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, charity.  That is my stand.  Of what use is it to debate whether I’m elect or freely coming to Christ while a man on the streets starves to death?  That is what I stand for.

 In the end, I say, "Love them all, and let God sort them out."

 But that’s just me…

Tim,

You said: I wonder, what does the post-modern movement stand for. What would it fight to protect? What would it die in the name of? At what point would it stand against the views of the world; choosing to believe in what is apparently unbelievable?

First, let me say that you’ve started your analysis of Emergent on an invalid assumption. There is no such thing as a “post-modern movement” here or anywhere. The term post-modern is an observation that people today (most all of us) understand the world, interact with each other, and operate on a day to day basis differently than people did during the last few centuries of “modernity” as they were learning to live in the modern enlightenment. It isn’t a set of beliefs or a set of doctrines and certainly not a movement. It is just an observation that we all approach everything different because our tools, surroundings, and knowledge base are different. If a person today tries to live in a state of “modernity” rather than the current early stages of “post-modernity” then it is equivalent to a caveman trying to be the one man on earth that refuses to live his life with fire or the wheel. Each generation has to deal with the changes in their own worldview that comes naturally from the advancements of technology and communications. The vision will always need to be recast within the framework of the current worldview. The fact that you are attempting to dialogue with people around the world via this medium and understand them is a post-modern concept based on the globalization of our human society through new forms of communications in this post-modern era. In a different era a person would not be likely to do this, instead they would be more prone to deepen the intellectual, geographical, and emotional boundaries that define their “group” and focus on the preservation of those dividing lines as if their way of life depended on the existence of the boundaries. It may seem to you that the conversation is taking away items of faith and leaving a less robust faith, but by taking away items that were once “non-negotiable” the conversation broadens as it allows more diverse views into the conversation and thus into the search for solutions.

Even as your questions have a post-modern undercurrent, your questions also show an internal conflict that is common among all of us who live on the edge of modernity. There is never a sharp transition point as worldviews shift gradually and migrate slowly around the world just as they did in the past when people shifted from hunter-gather societies to agricultural societies and then to industrialized nations. It is never a smooth transition. On one hand, your questions show a desire to move beyond boundary based religion and embrace the open dialogue that is prominent in a post-modern diverse and even pluralistic culture, but you still attempt to force faith into an old modern shape by looking to define it as if it is a tribal, nationalistic, or maybe denominational element that must be defended. In a sense, you are attempting to place a square peg in a round hole. I see this in your assumption that “the world” is something to be opposed instead of something to be nurtured, loved and brought into relationship. Based on your questions, is it reasonable to assume that you see the whole point of your faith is to believe something that is unbelievable? What does the “un” in your “unbelievable” imply? Does it mean we are asked to believe something that the human brain is incapable of believing (e.g. it is impossible)? Or is it maybe just not understandable? Does it mean that it is something we choose not to believe but actually IS believable or does it mean that the point of faith in your mind is to believe something that is in fact not true? Do you mean to imply that the level of absurdity of a person’s beliefs should be used as the measuring stick of a robust faith? Is my faith less robust if my beliefs are not so absurd? I don’t think so. Instead, I think a robust faith is a deep commitment to an ideal or vision for what society can be (the kingdom of God). I don’t think it has anything at all to do with what a person believes about what did or didn’t happen in the past.

If we can move past your initial mistake in categorization, I do think there is a simple answer to your questions that makes perfect sense in light of history and in light of what is presented in the Bible. Post-modern people of faith stand for (and you might say are often willing to die for) the same things that modern and even ancient people like Abraham, Moses, Amos, Jeremiah, Jesus and Paul stood for. It is what the Garden of Eden describes as and what the Israelites longed for as they crossed the desert toward the Promised Land. It is what Paul and the many early Christians were willing to die for as they opposed an oppressive Empire. I don’t think it has every changed even if it has been modified in language, narrative, and metaphor. We “stand for” a just society, a dream of peace, a vision of equality, and the hope for abundant life. The birth of Israel began in exodus from a state of oppression and with the hope of a promised society of peace and prosperity. The voice of the prophets longed for return from exile back into a society of justice. The message of Jesus hinges on the hope for a new kingdom where the last is first and the first is last and no single sheep is lost. The passion of Paul rests in the transformation of the world from the grips of selfishness and rebirth into selflessness. I don’t see where any of these descriptions of purpose are any different. Each story tells the same meaning even if the cultural setting, language, and particular obstacles are different for each storyteller. All these words and metaphors mean the same thing; community, covenant, relationship, wholeness, oneness, return from exile, liberation, freedom, restoration.

I think fundamentalists make a huge mistake when they read these stories and the only thing they glean from them are the particular superstitions and worldviews that each of these people and cultures held only to miss their more than literal meanings. People often extract the superstitions and try to force them on themselves as if we today can pretend to assume that we live in a world where virgins give birth or corpses come to life. For some reason, we try to conserve the ancient beliefs of our mythologies and too often throw away the deeper meanings. These wonderful poets and dreamers longed for life in a peaceful just society where neighbors coexist in harmony, enemies are loved until they are no longer enemies, debts are systematically forgiven, generational wealth is returned without questions, and the vision articulated so well by Jesus for a new society becomes a reality as God’s will is done on Earth. Why should we read all these wonderful stories about quality character development and a just society and only pay attention to the superstitions and beliefs in the supernatural that we get as a byproduct of the storyteller’s cultural setting?

A big difference in these emergent conversations is the fact that many people are looking to understand the more authentic meaning of these ancient stories in their original context. If there is something that seems to be missing in these conversations, it is the older more “modern” concept that a particular person or institution holds a monopoly on the topics and framework of the discussion.

Tim—fantastic questions. And I think you will have noticed we certainly don’t all agree about what’s worth ‘standing for’…

Personally, I think the best example (to date) of a ‘post-modern’/emerging theologian who focuses on phrasing things positively is Stanley Hauerwas. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t identified with the emerging church, but he certainly has espoused a post-modern epistemology which avoids many modern pitfalls (though perhaps it has a share of its own?).

For him (and for me, since I largely agree with him), an ‘emerging’ Christianity (notice, I didn’t say the emerging Christianity)—which should just be called ‘faithful’ Christianity—involves agape love of God, self and others, but primarily of enemies. Pacifism, roughly speaking. For me, a call to ‘turn the other cheek’, and to overcome evil with good is at the heart of what Christ sought to teach his disciples.

A strong communal ecclesiology (with a strong boundary: baptism) in which the sharing of resources is practiced also seems central to me (Richard Hays and Ben Witherington are other [post-?]evangelical scholars who have emphasized this).

Finally, I would argue that a strong Kingdom-awareness (where Kingdom of God is absolutely separate and distinct from Kingdom of the world) is central to faithful Christianity. This alters and qualifies any involvement Christians can have in the world’s ‘politics’ (because the Kingdom life is its own kind of uncompromisable politics).

For all these thoughts, I’m heavily indebted to Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, Richard Hays, Ben Witherington and NT Wright (to a lesser extent).

Hopefully this helps underline what at least one person in the emerging church conversation thinks is worth underlining.

 Cheers,

 -Daniel-