A few years ago, I began the move away from the traditionally evangelical expression of Christianity, finding it very difficult to resonate with aspects of the movement. Since then, I’ve struggled to define myself denominationally. I love the contemplative tradition, along with the mysticism associated with it. I also love aspects of the Church of England; the all-embracing liturgies, the sense of ‘anyone is welcome’. I also feel that the evangelicals have a lot right; the informality, the passion, the zeal. At the same time, I love the formality and focus on tradition that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches share.
So what do I call myself? When I tell my friends that I don’t really consider myself an evangelical Christian anymore, and they ask what I do consider myself, what do I say? A lot of people have suggested that perhaps I am what they call a post-modern/emergent Christian. I have always resisted this label; not really knowing why.
It is this site which has helped me to understand my discomfort with the post-modern movement. I am not, I hasten to add, writing this as a criticism of emergent Christian - at least not intentionally. Rather, I write this seeking an answer to an issue which I seek to understand. What I struggle with in this movement is working out what it stands for.
I see, in the articles posted on this website a constant re-evaluation and exploration of the Christian faith. This is healthy, and is something I find very attractive. However, this exploration does not seem to be motivated by the discovery of new ideas. It is not, apparently, the exploration of Galileo, or Chris Columbus or Marco Polo; who sought to broaden their ideas and worldview. It seems to me (forgive me) that this exploration is indeed one of narrowing ones ideas. I look to the ‘latest comments’ column on my right, and see "What Jesus did NOT die on the cross for", questions about the divinity of Jesus, a re-evaluation of our doctrine of hell, questions about the resurrection, and concerns about how credible angels and demons are.
None of these questions are wrong, certainly they are things which I have at times pondered over as well, and with regards to most of them, I have no clear, easy-to-understand answer to give. But the theme seems to consistently be one of stripping away the ‘difficult to swallow’ bits of Christianity - the bits that don’t make sense to a (get this) modern way of thinking.
Now, this sounds very negative and critical, and I must re-iterate that I don’t intend for it to be. I have read a lot on this site, and very much respect many of your views and ideas; I am sure that if I met any of you in the non-cyber world, we would get on very well! But based entirely (and broadly) on my engaging with this site; I wonder, what does the post-modern movment 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?
I recently finished Chesterton’s Orthodoxy; which greatly challenged and inspired me. One of the things Chesterton says that makes the book so impacting is that it is precisely the complexities of Christianity that make it what it is. It is the hard-to-believe that makes it worth believing! Reading the book has actually led me to explore Roman Catholocism, because I find the religion that Chesterton speaks of so beautiful.
But I digress. Anyway, the long-and-short of this post is this: What is the emergent movement for? When it has finished stripping away all the slightly weird, hard-to-understand, or unpleasant bits of Christianity, what is left?
That’s all, really. I am not an expert theologian, nor would I call myself a post-modern Christian, so perhaps I have entirely misunderstood the movement; in which case, do let me know! I seek only to understand, not to devalue or criticise.
Thanks!
Tim
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
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…
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
I like what you write here. I certainly agree with everything that you stand for, and find nothing to fault in it. But I don’t see this as ‘emergent’ spirituality in particular. I’m sure most Christians would, in theory, agree with what you say. What sets aside the emergent scene from the other scenes?
You say that it is about rising above the limits of fundamentalism. But is that not simply liberalism? And liberalism, of course, is nothing new. Going against fundamentalism doesn’t interest me, because the liberal-conservative battle is one that has been raging for what seems like an eternity, and I’m not keen on either side.
Perhaps if some sort of doctrine could begin to be developped in which we rise above, not fundamentalism, but above liberal/conservative labelling, that would be something that excites me! I’d be interested in pursuing that movement!
So again I ask, what is new about the emergent church? What is post-modern about it? What is original in this movement?
I’m not saying that there is nothing new or original in it, I just can’t see what there is!
I hope that makes sense.
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
Tim,
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.
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
Hey, thanks for the reply. Once again, let me re-iterate (though there probably isn’t any need to) that I don’t dislike the emergent movement (note: not post-modern movement! :-p), I’m simply trying to engage in dialogue, all the while holding the olive-branch of peace!
While I resonate a lot with what you’re saying, there are still some aspects of it that I struggle with. You mentioned that I see "the world" as something to be opposed instead of something to be nurtured and loved. Here we enter into the eternal problem of linguistics. Just to clarify - I love the world. It’s the only home I’ve known. Hell, I’m a part of it - to hate it would be like my finger hating the rest of my body!
What I do think needs to be opposed, however, is worldliness. The desire for self-aggrandisement, material gain, and, ultimately, meaninglessness. The idea that things simply are as they are, without ever questioning why they are that way; why is the grass green, why does gravity happen, etc, seems illogical to me. Science can, and does, explain how these things happen, but it is through faith that we explore why. I must be careful, also, when I say ‘opposed’; I do not mean in some sort of military battle of religious zeal, I simply mean a firm belief in meaning that goes against the meaningless message of worldliness.
Now, where I struggle with your text is your description of what the Christian message is all about;
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.
Now, I stand for all of these things as well; they are good and worthwhile things, but they are not, in my estimation, especially Christian. The other 17 flats in my block are all inhabited by non-Christians who would whole-heartedly agree with this vision. In fact, pretty much all the world religions, as well as most atheist worldviews, would agree with this. What makes it especially Christian?
For me, the message of Christ, the Scriptures, the Christian faith, isn’t simply of ‘love one another’ (though as I say, that is vitally important), it is equally (if not more so?), one of ‘love the Lord your God’; The first commandment, the Golden Rule. The message I read about, and seek, is one of a loving creator who returns to Earth in order to be in communion with those whom he created. The outworking of this relationship is certainly the kind of message that you speak of, but that does not seem to be the first message. But then, I suppose this comes down to the different ways in which you and I read the Scriptures. I can’t prove to you that my priorities are the same as God’s, any more than you can prove to me that yours are.
Now, you seem (correct me if I’m wrong) to write off some of the miracles in the Bible, stating that we don’t live in a world where virgins give birth or corpses come to life. Here I disagree with you. We live in a world in which I have never seen either of these things. What you seem to be saying is that because you’ve never witnessed either of these events, they don’t happen. But why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t God choose to reveal himself in miraculous, supernatural ways? Why should we emasculate (for want of a better word) by limiting him to the laws which limit us? GK Chesterton writes wonderfully about this, better than I am now, in Orthodoxy. Check out also The Unexpected Way by Paul Williams. Both heavily rooted in the theology of Thomas Aquinas.
It seems to me that your embrace of a modern (!) worldview - which limits reality to what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell - strips away that which makes Christianity unique, changing it instead into a nice message of holding hands that everyone can embrace.
I completely agree with you that the Virgin birth and resurrection are more important than simply a piece of history; without their relevence to today’s world, they seem to have little meaning. But why reduce them to simply parables? Why can they not be also be historically true?
I’m suprising myself at how evangelical I sound in this little rant, and how much I sound like those who have criticised my faith in the past. Perhaps they’re on to something after all, right?
What do you think?
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
Exactly! What a wonderful idea to imagine Christians in harmony healing the world right along side of other religions including atheists! Will you only follow a religious path if it can be proved to be somehow superior to all others? Do you measure the value of your own faith by highlighting the deficiencies of your neighbor’s faith? Isn’t it a better mission to be healing the world together rather than fighting against it? Why do we need to feel like we have something that others don’t have? For me, it is inspirational to think that the message of Jesus (the word of God that was “in the beginning”) has also found its way into language in many different cultures in many different parts of the world. Isn’t the golden rule MORE important since we find it in many cultural expressions or is that truth lessened because it isn’t exclusive to only one messenger?
Why does our theology have to be about believing something that doesn’t happen to you and I? When did being a Christin become believing something that was difficult to believe? To believe in Jesus and accept him is more about believing in his vision and accepting his ideas not about believing in his existence or the facts of a particular narrative about him. Miracle stories originated to validate the meanings. Early Christians didn’t have to bend their worldview in order to follow Jesus so why should we? Do we get more “points” now because we have more information about reality to reject?
Theology should be more about articulating what is observed not buiding up certainty in things we can’t observe. If you or I have never seen a miracle then it makes more sense to simply document that fact rather than running around in circles trying to imagine something that isn’t happening or worse trying to manufacture it. Hey, if you are witnessing miracles then by all means, please include that in your observations. It should be part of your story, but it isn’t part of mine and I’m not going to blame myself or God.
My view isn’t about reducing stories to parables it is about ELEVATING the stories to the level of parables and out of the muck of history telling. The Bible is a miserable history book with lots of holes and almost zero details but it is a wonderful creative narrative. People reduce the value and credibility of the Bible if they try to force it into the genre of history telling. Only a more modern mind would see historical evidence as somehow more valuable than wonderful symbolic narrative.
Simply because there is no reason to think they are historically true. When a story includes a talking snake it is a pretty good sign that the storyteller is about to project a symbolic meaning. The same goes for a virgin birth, a resuscitation from the dead, or a world devouring beast. Why think otherwise? Which way of reading the text is more likely to be true? Did Jesus’ followers complain that the prodigal son story was useless if it never actually happened? Jesus taught in parables about God, so what makes us think that his followers wouldn’t teach about him through parables.
It might go like this… Jesus was so wonderful and so insightful that he must have been “God incarnate”. It is almost as if he was God in human form. His life was too important to have been ended on a cross, so it must have been something God planned from the start and he must still be alive at the right hand of God right now. I can imagine that type of sentiment and it is easy to see how the stories would have formed. They are beautiful parables and life changing in their inspiration. I agree with the sentiment but I don’t think we should be compelled to take those stories literally or feel ashamed if we can’t take them literally. We certainly shouldn’t let the the literal interpretation overpower the more than literal meanings.
To answer your question about what is “new” in the emerging conversation, I think the thing that is new is that people who admit they disagree about theological items are now agreeing to be friends and working together to continue dialogue and share in common goals. In the past, the goal had been to clearly define the boundaries of each group and try to declare victory for one particular definition. For the first time, Christianity is beginning to be defined by its deeper goals and it’s tangible impact not by the boundaries of its individual metaphysical beliefs. In other words, our theological discussion are more about sharing how we both arrive at an appreciation for Jesus and a desire to change the world even if we totally disagree about history or intepretation of texts. I think that type of open attitude is “new” even if the particular theological ideas within the conversation are very old.
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
It seems to me that your theology is fairly conventional liberal theology. I don’t count myself as a liberal theologian, but I certainly see the value in what you’re writing. If we reduce the Bible to simply a history book, we will be disappointed. If it has no deeper relevence to us today, it is meaningless.
However, I still disagree with you. It seems your mindset is a firmly empirical, scientific, post-enlightenment, modern one. There is nothing post-anything in what I’m reading. John A. T. Robinson (who I have a lot of respect for, while disagreeing with him on a lot of things) was saying similar things to what you’re saying 50 years ago, as was Beecher 200 years ago. I don’t want to go into arguments of why I disagree with you - if this was a thread about the unique-ness of Christianity, or the existence of miracles, it would be worth pursuing, but as in a debate about the meaning of the emergent movement, it is a mere bagatelle. I’d love to hear your critique of Chesterton, Lewis, Aquinas and other more traditional theologians at some point, though!
The idea of getting on with each other despite our disagreements is a good one, I’m completely behind it - faith is bigger than theology. But again, this isn’t new. People have been doing the same thing for 1000s of years, with varying degrees of success.
Do you see my point? As it stand, you’ve said some things great things, and some things I disagree with, but I still can see nothing new in this debate. It simply seems to be the age-old debate of liberalism v fundamentalism, with the ever-present voice that says, "why can’t we all just get along?" I suppose all this is fuelled by my doubts that post-modernity actually exists. All I see wherever I look is modernity, albeit modernity that has re-discovered some pre-modern hobby-horses…
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
You are right. I’m absolutely 100% modern liberal in my theology. There is no doubt. I’ve very confident and comfortable in that viewpoint but that isn’t the collective view of “emergent”.
I think you are mistaken if you are looking for a different kind of theology becauase it doesn’t exist. I don’t speak for emergent. Most in Emergent are more conservative, but what is different about Emergent is the willingness for liberals like myself to converse and even build community with people that are more conservative. I’m in a “home church” that is filled with people from a wide variety of views. We all have dropped the idea that a community must declare itself on one side or the other. That is definately a new concept. None of the theological perspectives are new, but the concept of allowing multiple perspectives into the same conversation is very new. The goal is not to define the perfect systematic theology but to build community around tangible goals and missions and at that same time realizing that all the people willing to contribute will likely have A different theology. In the past, once a difference in theology was detected, relationships were ended and a new denomination or church was formed. This is why no person can claim a single theological perspective for Emergent. It is not a single person or a single perspective. It is a collection of vastly different perspectives all working together. Post-modern thinkers tend to move beyond the idea of classifying and building exclusive communities based on metaphysical beliefs and specific scriptural interpretations. The only requirement seems to be that you are willing to love, embrace, and work with people that may have different beliefs. That doesn’t mean we build a single watered-down faith, but instead we help each other develop many deep rich faith journeys all in one collective conversation. Where/when else has that ever been done in Christianity?
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
Tim - From the point of view of this site, I am probably one who contributes from a more conventional view of Christianity - according to your categories. But I identify with much of what you say about your own faith journey. It sounds very similar to mine.
The heart of the issue for this site seems to me to be this: whether a post-modern world needs a new post-modern theology, or whether a post-modern world needs a conventional theology which is presented in and has the emphases of a post-modern form. I argue for the latter.
So far, apart from danutz, whose viewpoint I think you have captured perfectly (and he agrees with your summary of it), it seems to me that only Andrew on the site is consistently batting for a theology which in its emphases produces something very different from the conventional, traditional views. At least, he argues his views consistently, but I find many inconsistencies in the arguments.
But I think the site captures something else, which might reflect a positive of the post-modern mindset. Innumerable people interact with each other from a variety of standpoints, in a forum in which it is (fairly) safe to express differing, often conflicting views, without being tacitly or openly excommunicated for heresy! This seems to me to capture something of the inclusiveness of community of what might be described as post-modern - if the ‘modern’ is, by contrast, all about conforming to one monolothic belief system.
To pick up another of your points, I doubt if post-moderns would be willing to die for anything different from moderns, and possibly not for anything at all! In this sense I don’t think that post-modernism is a category that exists independently of modernism. It is essentially a critique of modernism - not a dismissal or rejection of it. In the real world, we see modernist and post-modernist viewpoints and expressions of culture and life existing, albeit uncomfortably, alongside each other. It’s not a case of one superseding the other, nor will it ever be. If it was, we would eventually revert to the stone-age. We need the discoveries, technologies, processes and practical efficiencies of modernism. I argue that we need the faith which, throughout the ages, people have been prepared to die for. There is, after all, a metanarrative at the heart of the Christian story (though what precisely this is has been debated on this site).
In the real world outside this site, I find that I cannot live without evangelical theological insights and emphases. I increasingly need the spirituality of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Celtic faiths. I hold to a faith which has a focus on the material world, the here and now, in practical, political and activist terms. I subscribe to an eclectic faith, in which I am interested in exploring and adopting the insights of many different theological viewpoints. But I cannot lose my moorings in a faith at the heart of which is the person of Jesus, who in the central events of his life and death changed history, fulfilled promises which affect life in its personal and communal dimensions, and brought hope for the world which has proved through the ages to be more than local, middle eastern, tribal and ethnically limited. More than here-and-now, but cetainly not merely there-and-then; emphatically an already-not-yet faith.
Uncannily, Jesus seemed to live out and model this faith in a way that much more resembles what is being modelled by post-modern faith communities than the expressions of the faith we have become used to in the modern period.
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
Once again, I find myself liking the gist (jist?) of what you’re saying, but struggling with one or two points.
Of course, I love the idea of a church in which we can all get along with each other - be we Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, whatever. I’ve been more liberal than most of the congregation of mh church for the past few years, and am eternally grateful to have a Christian family so willing to love and accept me despite our disagreements.
But this family was found in a fairly conventional charismatic evangelical church. It is quite possibly the most unemergent church in the UK! We sing Matt Redman songs, drink Ribena at communion, have tea and coffee after the service, and during the week the building is used as a pre-school and first aid training centre. Nothing ground-breaking there, right? And yet, for four years, it has been my Christian home - my family. The congregation has not embraced my what-they-deem-to-be-liberal views on the atonement, or salvation, other faiths, or Harry Potter, but has warmly, and firmly, embraced me. You won’t find a perfect systematic theology at my church. Hell, the theology that you will find there is full of holes and half-developped thoughts. What you will find is community, embrace, and acceptance.
You seem to use words to their effect as characteristic of the emergent movement, but like I say, my church is not emergent or post-modern. It is staunchly evangelical. I’m no fan of the theology, but am a great fan of the community and the desire to love, embrace, and work with people that may have different beliefs. So does this mean that my church is emergent without knowing it? Or does it mean that these are values that the church has stood for for 2000 years, albeit with varying degrees of success? I’d say the latter.
I don’t think Martin Luther set out to start a denomination. Nor did Henry VIII. Nor did Roger Williams, or the Council of Ephesus, or (why not?) St. Peter. What these people did was to see an issue with the church veering away from its original mission (or what they deemed its original mission to be), and try to steer it back on track. Denominations developed as people began to follow the movements. It seems to me that this is precisely what the emergent community is doing. This isn’t a problem; I’m not complaining. I’m all for different denominations. But it seems that this is exactly what the Emergent church is doing. Great emergent thinkers have seen problems in the church, tried to fix them, and in doing so, started a new denomination, as people started to follow their teachings. Interestingly, if we’re going by your description of the movement, it has very similar aims and objectives to the United Reformed Church; perhaps slightly tweaked.
Do you see my point? I tend to ramble. What I’m trying to say is that in its trying to work ecumenically with people of all Christian denominations, it is actually creating a new denomination. Is this a bad thing? I don’t think so. Like I say, I’m in favour of having lots of denominations (I’m also a great fan of the ecumenical movement). But what is this new denomination all about? It seems to draw in all sorts of people who are dissatisfied with the mainstream (evangelical) church - fine. But what do we once we have gathered (I say we, because I appear to have wandered into this generic new building myself)? We gripe about the mainstream church and its theology (all the while saying that theology is not what is important). It seems that a lot of talk of dismantling is going on behind the man’s back, but little is being done in terms of positive action; building, designing, creating.
Forgive me if I sound aggressive. I must admit I am adopting a slightly more militant view than I normally might in order to get some clarity!
Does that make any sense?
Re: My Issue with the Emergent Church: What does it stand for?
- Oops. That was intended as a reply for Danutz, not you Peter. Must have clicked the wrong link.
I find little to disagree with in what you have to say. I would certainly count myself as an advocate of the faith which you express. It seems, as you say, that we have had similar journeys.
I very much like what your description of post-modernity. As you say, I find it hard to see it existing independently of modernity. It seems, rather than the next evolutionary phase in man’s way of thinking, to describe a small group of moderns who have turned their gaze inward, and begun to critique the worldview of the era in which they live.
I am not sure if post-modernity is understood to be a wide phenomenon or not. It seems to me to be representative of the select few, rather than the majority. The best-selling book in the religion section at the WHSmith near me at the moment is Dawkins’ The God Delusion; a firmly modern book with no sense of post-modern introspection at all! A recent study; The Worldview of Generation Y, tells us that young people are not interested in anything beyond the immediate - they are contented with their xbox360s and iPods (I say this as a xbox360 and iPod-owning member of said generation); again, there is no sense of critique or challenge. The vast majority of the western world, it appears, is happy with its modern mindset. It is only a handful of insightful people (in which I include those involved in the emergent discussion) who seem to be challenging modernity, albeit from within.
Could perhaps the Emergent movement be to church what the koan is to short-stories? Or what Artaud was to theatre? Perhaps its role, based on this take on post-modernity is not to meet a need already expressed, but to present people with something so new, so different, so bizarre, that it overloads their current way of thinking, forcing them into something new. Perhaps we need the emergent church not to answer the questions that people are asking, but rather to give them something to ask questions about! In which case, perhaps Pete Rollins’ spectacle at Greenbelt last summer was a noble one after all… :-p
I don’t know, my fingers are working faster than my mind is, but that seems to me to be a worthwhile movement. Something that aims to be radical, to be surprising, in order to shake people up, and encourage them to begin to think and critique things for themselves. In shutting off the flawless systematic theology mechanism, perhaps it might even create a shocked silence into which God could speak…
That seems like something I’d want to be a part of. What do you think? Does any of that make sense, or is it just the senseless babblings of a self-important 22 year old?
Things I stand for
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-
Re: Things I stand for
I am extremely new to the movement, but here’s my take on it in one sentence. The emerging Church acts as a reformation of the reformation that (I hope) keeps reforming as time goes on.
Does that make any sense? :)
Re: Things I stand for
Hi enarchay.
Your definition seems a good one. I’m sure most people would gladly be part of something that reforms the reformation and keeps on reforming. Surely, most people would agree that reformation is a good thing.
However, most people would agree with it because it is so vague. It’s like saying, I want to start a church that is good, and just, and beautiful. Of course, everyone would want to be part of that church. But within minutes, all-out war would have escalated as people disagree as to what it means to be good, just and beautiful.
What does reformation mean? What are you reforming? What are you aiming towards? What, specifically, is it about the first reformation that needs reforming? Here is where it gets tricky.
Like I say, I like the idea of a reformation-reformation. But I’d probably disagree with a lot of people as to what that reformation means. Does that make sense?
Have you come across The Second Reformation by William A. Beckham? His mission statement is much like yours, and he comes up with some good ideas. I don’t always like his tone (he comes across quite militantly), and some of his arguments are quite tenuous, but generally, I feel that what he has to say is positive. Check it out if you haven’t already, I’d be interested to hear what you think!
Re: Things I stand for
Hi Daniel,
Thanks very much for your comment - apologies that it’s taken so long to reply, I’ve been on holiday. Back to job-seeking now (could anyone other than an unemployed person waste as much as I do on the internet?). Sigh.
Anyway, I like your description of Faithful Christianity. The ideas of pacifism (not passivism!), community and Kingdom-Awareness are all things that I am very keen on myself.
They are all ideas that I have read about and explored, but I have done so completely outside of any emergent community. I love the writings of people like James Alison, Rene Girard and Walter Wink - all wonderful and creative Christian pacifists. I am keen on the ideas of Monasticism; and actually for a while toyed with becoming a Benedictine oblate for a year. I’ve found a brilliant description of God’s Kingdom in Laurence Freeman’s Jesus The Teacher Within.
All of these ideas are great and praise-worthy, and my the sounds of what you write, we’d probably get on spiritually like a house on fire, but I’m still not sure where the words "emergent" or "post-modern" fit into this view of faith. Is the emergent church simply a church in which all of these things are appreciated? I’ve found non-violent churches, I’ve found very communal churches, I’ve found Kingdom-focused churches; is an emergent church simply one that could tick "all of the above" on a form?
Perhaps it is. In which case, great! We have a definition, and it’s certainly not a bad one. But I’d be surprised (maybe without due cause) if everyone on this forum agreed that this was the best definition of the emergent movement.
Does that make sense? Thanks again for the comment, I enjoyed reading a lot! Nice to find someone who seems to share a lot of my principles. :-)
monasticism
Tim—thanks for the positive feedback. As far as I’m concerned, the emerging church conversation is just a conversation some people (with very different theological views) are having around some relatively predictable centers (the question of truth, orthopraxis, new models for Scripture’s authority, etc.). Sometimes the conversation is helpful, other times it isn’t.
But my commitment to this particular conversation is not ultimate. What is ultimate is my commitment to the resurrected Christ and his Kingdom. Guess I just wanted to throw that out there since there’s no one definition of an ‘emergent church’. Don’t look for an emergent church. Look for a Kingdom church, regardless of what conversations it is or isn’t involved in.
Rather than the Benedictines, might I recommend joining a New Monastic community? The Simple Way in Philly or Mission Dei in the Twin Cities are good examples to look at (see newmonasticism.org for more examples). You get the benefit of monasticism without withdrawing from places of need…
Cheers,
-Daniel-