Duncan’s post on the narrative of Revelation has sparked an interesting dispute about the relationship between an emerging theology and preterism. Since the conversation isn’t directly relevant to the post, I wonder if we might explore its implications separately. It’s an opportunity to think a bit about what we mean by an emerging theology and how we might negotiate the boundaries between different dogmatic traditions as well as between modern and postmodern ways of thinking.

For those of us who are either out of school too long to remain sharp on minutiae of philosophy, ideology and theology or who were never educated in these areas to begin with, who may also be new to the idea of emergence and are still coming to terms with understanding what emergence is, as well as what it is not, and how it will manifest in relative terms to other “movements”, is there a meaningful distinction we need to make between something like Bishop Spong’s New Reformation (I am trusting that to be reasonably accurate) and the kind of re-thinking of theology and “Christian living” that we see coming out of emergence (and specifically on sites such as this one)?

Tim Leeson has initiated an interesting discussion about what the emerging church really stands for, which I think merits a stab at a more comprehensive and synthesizing response. The book Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger lists nine characteristics of emerging churches: identifying with Jesus, transforming secular space, living as community, welcoming the stranger, serving with generosity, participating as producers, creating as created beings, leading as a body, and merging ancient and contemporary spiritualities. These are mostly practical in their orientation - they have to do with how Christian communities function and express themselves in the world. I imagine that most people who feel that they are part of the emerging church would happily locate themselves within that nexus of practices.

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.

I have been reading with some considerable frustration An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The book describes itself on the back cover as:

a coming together of divergent voices into a collection of writings that will bring you the latest thinking of the emerging church. You will have a front-row seat as both established leaders and up-and-comers in this influential international movement grapple with how to be faithful Christians in today’s ever-changing cultural context.

There is a lengthy and largely hostile discussion of Open Source Theology and the theological aberrations of some its contributors taking place at Grace-Centred Forums. I was tempted as I read to point out that the opinions expressed sometimes fell short of the site’s name, but fortunately someone has already done that for me. Anyway, I’m sure they have some legitimate gripes.

There’s an impressive set of views on the emerging church movement presented as a Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum at www.9marks.org. The contributors were asked, ‘What do you hope will ultimately emerge from the emerging church conversation for evangelicals?’. They are not all quite singing from the same hymn sheet, and there is some recognition that the emerging church has at least a lopsided and temporary contribution to make to current theological debate and missional practice, but they are all broadly critical of the movement, some of them graciously so, some of them scathingly so.

Vynette, it’s good to see that despite the lack of support from traditional theology, you are willing to forge ahead. As long as your position produces a viable reading of both scriptural and other evidence, I wouldn’t worry about the lack of conformity too much.

Theology is not some external thing that has to be conformed to. In the final analysis, theology is what you believe about God!

My experience amongst the ‘post’ charismatic people in Northern Ireland who regularly go to Geenbelt is that they have a pronounced liberal /progressive outlook on theology and would be uncomfortable with a priority given to Biblical narrative or a literal understanding of eschatology as historical fact. Do these elements in your emerging church theology vision not create a boundary which is at odds with your open inclusive approach?

Andrew,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful comments. Because I’m jumping into this conversation mid-stream, and don’t know all the background behind your comments, it’s somewhat difficult for me to understand what you are saying. So let me try to understand before proceeding to my reponse: You want to develop a “method” for doing emerging theology. By “method” I take it you mean rules of engagement. Yet you don’t want your rules of engagement to predetermine the content (or outcome) of the theologizing itself, kind of like the constitutions of philosophical liberalism (Locke, Rawls et al). Let’s provide the platform on which to speak, but let’s not predetermine the outcome. So when I speak of a “divinely-conferred authority,” you are concerned about this pre-determining our outcome, which you have called a “pre-judgment.”