The Problem with the Emergent/Emerging Movement by Bill Easum
I've posted articles written by Bill Easum here before. This one directly addresses his concerns about the Emergent/Emerging Movement. Agree or disagree, it's an interesting read.
The Problem with the Emergent/Emerging Movement
by Bill Easum
This might not be the most popular article I've ever written but I feel the need to write it.
Brian McLaren has been a long time friend of EBA and has contributed much to the Christian scene. But lately I have been reevaluating my view of the Emergent/Emerging movement and I find it to be disturbing and potentially hazardous to Christianity.
I call your attention to a new book just out by R. Scott Smith titled Truth & the New Kind of Christian (you remember that McLaren wrote a book titled A New Kind of Christian). Although this book is tough reading, it does a superb job of showing up the fallacies in the writings of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones and has helped me put my finger on something I’ve long suspected but couldn’t put into words – the theme of the emergent movement is hazardous to the health of Christianity.
The Key issue I have with the emerging movement is this – Does the message of the Gospel correspond to reality, or is it nothing more construct of our own language within the community of faith? The emerging movement says we can never really know the reality of the Gospel apart from our community language- that is our talk within the community constructs the gospel- which brings us very close to relativism.
Both writers insist that in order for Christianity to survive in a post modern world Christian must adopt a new view of faith, namely a postmodern faith where truth is no longer absolute and all of us are caught within the confines of our own language. Our language constructs reality only with the bounds of the Christian community.
The author nails McLaren and Jones on their linguistic/constructionist view of history and shows how adopting their form of Christianity will ultimately cause the demise of Christianity.
Even though I’m a friend of McLaren’s I urge you not to take him too seriously. We must listen to observations of how modernity has negatively affected Christianity and reduced much of it to a shallow form of its real self, especially its elitist and passionless attitude toward the world. Still we shouldn’t allow ourselves to throw the baby out with the bath water and resign ourselves to never being able to really know the real Jesus apart from the language of our community. Christians can know ultimate truth without having boomproof evidence as McLaren demands.
If we take McLaren’s and Jones’s arguments to their conclusion: we can never know God as he really is; Jesus is nothing more than the construct of our community language; and the resurrection never happened because language cannot make a dead person live again.
One sentence from the book sums it up: “The faith cannot survive a transformation into being a linguistic construction of how Christians talk” (p.155).
We shouldn’t be duped into believing we must adopt a postmodern faith in order to reach the postmodern world. We also don’t have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to address the issues raised by these emerging leaders. However, I do agree with them that we must adopt new methods of reaching the new world. Like we’ve heard many times- we must be in the world but not of the world.
I agree with the authors that we can’t come on to postmoderns like gangbusters with an elitist attitude as if we have THE truth. I agree with them that the four spiritual laws no longer work. I agree with them that if we lead from the big story we are dead in the water. I agree with them that the new world sees everything in shades of gray. But I do not agree that Christians must feel they have to be two steps removed from the reality of the Gospel in order to reach this new world. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. The clearer a leader is about the reality of gospel and the direction of their calling the more likely that person is to lead a growing and thriving community of faith.
Now here is the clincher- look at most of the emerging churches-they are small and you seldom here about them. Then look at some of the thriving congregations who are actually changing the world around them, like The Dream Center in Los Angeles. That one church is doing more to change the world and reach the postmodern than all of the emerging churches rolled into one. And the pastor of that church is clear- Jesus is the hope of the world for every living creature. That’s his reality and it’s not because his words make it so; it’s because God makes is so.
Not long after reading Brian’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy, I sent him an email to which he never replied. The email went like this.
Brian, I just finished you book A Generous Orthodoxy. I must admit it raised many of the questions that haunt me from time to time. I thank you for writing it. However, my friend, I must give you a word of warning – Please don’t let your theology evolve any further. For I’m afraid, my friend, if you do you will wind up outside of the bounds of Christianity. I fear for you and for our mutual hope for the world. I know you deeply care about bringing people to Jesus.
Your friend Bill.
I still feel the same way about Brian - I count him as a friend (I don’t personally know Tony Jones, wish I did). I still know Brian loves Jesus and prays everyday people will come to know him as he does. Still, I disagree with the direction he is going. I still get the urge to reach for the aspirin bottle every time I think about the conclusions of the arguments.
The emerging movement causes me much angst. I know, I’m getting old, but I really don’t think that has anything to with it. I have been on the forefront to sounding the alarm about the changing world long before Brian or Jones appeared on the scene. My book Dancing With Dinosaurs was one of the very first Christian books to talk about the crack in history. No the problem lies at the heart of postmodern thought – it is categorically opposed to everything about Christianity. And there is no way in Hell we should adopt a postmodern view of Christianity.
Well, those are my thoughts. I really do have a headache now. Where is that aspirin bottle?
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 9:43 AM
36 Comments:
Brent, First, yes you detected a bit of sarcasm in my last post. Now as to Easum-- a great article. He expresses some of my concerns about the place of the Bible in the Emerging Church. I really appreciated much of what I read in A Generous Orthodoxy, especially The Seven Jesuses I have known, but I was worried about his view of authoritative revelation.
This is not necessarily an indictment of the emerging church (small e). Admittedly it is hard to distinquish the two in conversation but I see "emerging"
as an appropriate word for those churches seeking to find a new way to show Christ and to minister in this time. I am concerned that a good word (emerge) has been hijacked and will eventually become unusable by others who hold a high view of Scripture but who at the same time need new wineskins.
Thanks to Bill Easum and thanks to you Brent for the post.
Hello. Josh, here. I've recently become a part of the CGGC. This is my first "up close" experience with a denomination and it has been a good one. My family helped to plant a church through the Midwest Region.
Anyway, wanted to respond to a theme in Bill's article. I don't know enough to comment on the future theologies of the Emergent folk, but the "way of knowing" stuff is right up my alley.
Bill writes, "Does the message of the Gospel correspond to reality, or is it nothing more construct of our own language within the community of faith?"
Frankly, I'm not sure those two thoughts are opposites. What if universal truths are true across the board, but the depths of our createdness (which mimick God)cause us to highlight certain interests and develop certain ways of living those interests--like the (3) brothers in Genesis who plumbed the depths of music, agriculture and metalworking.
If that's the case, then we might develop "jargons" of sort to relate nuances to like minded individuals. If we like to create evangelistic communities as parts of larger non-Christian communities, and those larger non-Christian communities vary greatly, and the Gospel really means (good) "news" that is spoken, then . . . .
So, my two cents. Thanks for letting me participate.
Gang,
I have two thoughts about what Easum says.
First, I agree with his critique of McLaren and Jones and those who have allowed themselves to be theologically enculturated by postmodern thinking. To be so thoroughly swayed by secular philosophy is foolish, no matter what the philosophy. It was foolish when Rudolf Bultmann swallowed the Kool Aid of modernism and demanded that the miracle accounts of Scripture be demythologized. It is equally foolish when the Emergent Village gang goes overboard in wishing to be hip and allow themselves to be more postmodern than Christian. Christian thinking is bigger than that. It will always be counter culture--even if the culture represents the latest, hippest, most groovy, up to date thinking. Today’s Postmodernism.
Second, I cringe at what Easum has done. He’s done a D. A. Carson. A John Macarthur. He has done what some who have raised a ruckus on this blog have done. It’s what I encouraged Ken Zitsch not to do over and over again. Easum has associalted absolutely everything Emerging and Emergent with very extreme examples of what we believe. I know many of you fairly well. What Easum accuses us of is not a fair description of Brian Miller or Dan or Brent or Tammy or Lew. And, I can assure you it doesn’t describe me.
There are oodles of us around who see that the world has changed. People who need Jesus are asking different questions than they did a generation ago. They are troubled in different ways than they used to be. And, the Great Commission directs us to go to them and to listen to their questions and show them that Jesus is their answer too. Bill Easum and D. A. and Johnny Mac and some in the CGGC community have made the mistake of assuming that the only answers that the Emerging community is proposing are the answers of our whackos. (Did I just call Brian McLaren a whacko? Oops.) McLaren and Jones speak for far fewer than many think.
Not good, Bill. Not good.
Thanks for participating, Josh.
Wow. There are so many things wrong with this article, I don't even know where I begin. Nevermind, it's probably not worth my time to bother.
I will just throw one question out there there: what if postmodernism is right? In other words, what if - if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself that is - you don't get to choose whether or not to accept that our knowledge is linguistically constructed within communities of discourse? What if this is simply the case whether we like it or not? What then? Do we just hide our heads in the sand and insist that absolute truth MUST exist and, lo and behold, we actually happen to be the ones who have figured it out? Or do we have the humility and courage to admit that we "see through a glass darkly", and embrace this as simply part of our nature as finite and fallen creatures?
Hey Josh welcome. Haven't seen you for a while. Maybe we'll bump into each other this summer.
I had read this myself since we've had some involvement with Easum and Bandy. Truthfully I didn't follow it.
Bill, Thanks for your insight on the article. I find that one of the benefits of dialogue is to help me think things through. This may also touch on one of your concerns Mike. There is no person more dangerous than the one who thinks he/she has the corner on truth. To repeat a quote I heard from Bernard Ramm--Fundamentalalists believe in the fall of man until it comes to thier interpretation of the Bible than they believe they have the right interpretation.
Of course this would be true of any group making that claim. That being said we must believe there is an absolute truth even though
we see through a glass darkly.
We need the accountabilty of the community. "Do not have contempt for prophecies. Test everything."
Back your comments Bill, Easum did paint the whole emerging church with the same brush and thus he did blast others who long for, perhaps were created for new wineskins. So I will apologize for what seemed a wholehearted endorsement of the article while at the same time saying he did make some good points. (Do I sound like a politician?)
I noticed a serious omission in my last post. It should read "Back TO your comments, Bill...." I wasn't asking for references.
Oh I believe "absolute truth" exists (though I'm not sure why we need to keep tacking adjectives onto the front of plain old truth), I just don't think I can ever know for sure whether or not my own beliefs reflect it. If absolute truth exists, then God alone knows it.
I've been watching this post about postmoderns and the question of truth. It's reflective of the divide showing up between emergents and other evangelicals. Is there a concern that we can move so far away from the idea of truly knowing any truth that we slide down the slippery slope toward a faith with no certainty left at all? Sure. And there may be "emergents" who are landing there. But I'm not at all convinced, by Bill Easum or anyone else, that Brian McLaren has landed there. I have read just about everything McLaren has ever published. Take the two most recent examples. His book The Secret Message of Jesus said that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached was a specific call to live for certain things in this world. If he doesn't believe in "real truth", how could he advocate a very specific Gospel of the Kingdom, and sound such a clear call to Christian people to follow Jesus and live this Gospel? Or take his book Everything Must Change: he critiques what is happening in our world and how we are (or are not) responding to it based on specific convictions of truth concerning what God cares about. My point is that he has specific, rather than vague, convictions.
I know that many people are freaked out by the suggestion that we understand truth within the limitations of language and culture, and hence always find ourselves wearing a set of "lenses". But all I have to do is look back at my own journey with Christ and observe the way that me beliefs and perspectives have evolved over 25 years to see that this is true. "Now we see through a glass darkly..." and so we move (hopefully) toward ever-increasing clarity. I think Mike put it well:
"Oh I believe 'absolute truth' exists... I just don't think I can ever know for sure whether or not my own beliefs reflect it. If absolute truth exists, then God alone knows it."
I think there are things I can know, as a follower of Jesus, as certainties, but even these certainties I will not know exhaustively, and so I must always leave room for greater clarity and even the possibility that I have been seriously mistaken about something.
I think we would be more productive to try to live the way Jesus advocates in his own teachings that nail each other over the degree of clarity we believe is attainable. And I will give Brian McLaren that: At least he is writing and speaking about what the Way of Jesus is, and calling us to live in that Way, rather than following past evangelical style and writing another 18 point doctrinal statement for us all to sign. Read the Gospels and see how much Jesus talks "doctrinal truth" versus "becoming and living"-- it's pretty eye opening.
I'm going to end this with one of my favorite Lewis poems. Hope you enjoy it.
THE APOLOGIST'S EVENING PRAYER
From all my lame defeats and oh! Much more From all the victories that I seem to score ;
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.
question: Is it true that we cannot know truth?
John 16:13
F.Swavely
"Is it true that we cannot know truth?"
I don't know.
well said Fran
"...some in the CGGC community have made the mistake of assuming that the only answers that the Emerging community is proposing are the answers of our whackos."
One major thing to consider here is that McLaren, Carson, and MacArthur, along with Tony Jones and others, are publishing their thoughts in actual books while many of the voices Bill S. refers to are appearing in blogs such as these.
I think there is a MAJOR difference between the credibility of a blog and a text publication, but his point is still valid.
- - -
Also, Mike made the comment "...what if - if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself that is - you don't get to choose..." Unfortunately, I don't know if the academic preparation of pastors (in a traditional seminary program) provides the necessary framework to be "intellectually honest" about this topic. While I think this statement is somewhat heavy handed (so, does being intellectually honest with myself require that I agree with Mike?) I think he makes a good point.
I am not a seminary-basher. You don't have to look very far to find them. I think academic preparation is extremely important. But I have been concerned for some time that the traditional model of seminary education (Biblical Studies, Practical Studies, Theological Studies, Historical Studies) may need some tweaking to help pastors better engage the concerns of the 21st century.
Brent,
"...I have been concerned for some time that the traditional model of seminary education (Biblical Studies, Practical Studies, Theological Studies, Historical Studies) may need some tweaking to help pastors better engage the concerns of the 21st century."
I'd love it if you'd consider fleshing this out for us and giving us some of your thoughts on the relevance/irrelevance of theological education to the challenges of the emerging world.
I've been asking myself this question and am only at the point of forming preliminary conclusions.
Bill,
Give me a few days to pull some thoughts together. If I think my thoughts make sense, I'll probably post them under a new heading.
I appreciated Mike's comments about the context of our knowledge. It took me many years to realize that what I believed was influenced by my culture and was not necessarily true. So in the interest of full disclosure I admit that my use of the phrase "absolute truth" is influenced by Francis Schaeffer. He used to talk of True Truth. That kind of qualifier is helpful to me because not all truth is on the same level.
There is inconsequential truth--truth that doesn't have any thing to do with me.
There is trivial truth--The final episode of MASH was the most watched TV show.
There is meaningless truth--anything that has to do with Britney Spears.
There is temporary truth--The sky is clear today.
There is absolute truth--It is true now and tommorrow. It is important. It is true no matter how I feel about it.
Brent, I will be looking for further comments on seminary training.
"While I think this statement is somewhat heavy handed (so, does being intellectually honest with myself require that I agree with Mike?)"
Not at all. What a strange question. Obviously being intellectually honest with yourself requires agreeing with yourself, not with me. I was speaking personally. I studied postmodern philosophy in college and I can't simply ignore or hide from the things I learned there. But other people are not me and haven't reached the same conclusions. You have to be intellectually honest regarding your own insights and beliefs, not mine.
"There is absolute truth--It is true now and tommorrow. It is important. It is true no matter how I feel about it."
That's all well and good vieuwloup, but the question of postmodernism is how do you know when you have this? Many things I once would have put in the category of "absolute truth" I no longer would, so at what point, on what basis, can I say that particular opinion of mine should be considered "absolute"?
Mike,
Fair enough. I got caught on the pronoun "you" since you didn't write "If I am going to intellectually honest with myself."
Point taken.
Mike said,
"I just don't think I can ever know for sure whether or not my own beliefs reflect(absolute truth). If absolute truth exists, then God alone knows it."
Andrew said,
"question: Is it true that we cannot know truth?"
Mike said,
"I don't know."
Mike also said,
"...Obviously being intellectually honest with yourself requires agreeing with yourself..."
Mike, if you don't know if truth can be known, then (if your intellectually honest with yourself) then you must admit that the possibility exists that truth can be known.
Only God knows all truth. You are right to say that we look in a glass darkly. No one has all the answers. But God has chosen to reveal some truth to us.
Jesus said,
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
Again, God's word which is truth tells us,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."
May you accept this in the spirit of Prov 27:6.
Mike isn't suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
In my talking with postmodern guys about God, they insist we start with "How can we know for sure?" And the answer is "I don't know. It is a mystery. You must believe by faith, not proof."
Then we talk about Jesus and you have to set some navigational markers such as:
-"I believe in the authority of the Bible as God's Word."
-"I believe Jesus was the Son of God and came to earth to die for my sins."
-"I believe Jesus is coming back to wrap this whole thing up into something that makes sense - a Kingdom where justice and grace flow like a river."
The markers aren't any less to the person's faith because of their view of the universe. In fact, in many ways, they are more significant because of the possibilities.
But markers must be established for the journey. Postmoderns do re-ask questions that we thought we were settled on, and admittedly that can get irritating. Do we really have to start all over? Maybe. But there is much that we know about the markers.
Andrew, I still think some of whjat's going back and forth here is semantic, though if Mike disagrees with that, I'll let him try to clarify that. For the record, and I hope no one took my comments otherwise, I do believe that God reveals the truth about Himself. That passage you quoted from Romans is a favorite of mine. And I do believe that the TRUTH Jesus brings to us can make us free if we take it deeply within ourselves. Yet on the human side, we struggle to try to discern the truth rightly. That's what Lewis meant in that poem: there is a difference between God as he is and my thoughts of Him (even my thoughts informed by God's Word). And so often, standing firmly on our thoughts, our interpretations, we draw lines in the sand-- just look at the floodgate of separatism since the Reformation... a zillion denominations all claiming they have the details pegged just right. So I believe in the truth about Jesus and the truth Jesus himself teaches us, but I know that I don't always get it just right and have to allow room for a lot of rethinking along the way.
I also think that the categories of primary and secondary theological issues can be helpful here. Much of Christian disagreement is over issues less substantial than the nature of Christ or of salvation. It's hard to picture the Jesus of the Gospels intensely debating much of what is in our doctrinal statements.
As for primary issues, I find that at one level, I agree with almost all of my Christian brothers and sisters about core issues: Jesus as both God and man, salvation being a gift of grace, the Bible as the Word of God, etc. But in recent years I have realized that we often do not think DEEPLY about those "core things". By deeply I do not mean toward greater complexity, but toward questions of what these things really mean-- beyond simple statements people ought to believe to be good Christians. For example, as I have read a wide variety of both Protestant and Catholic authors in recent years, I have realized that the Gospel is something deeper than I had understood it to be. The deeper and more wholistic understanding of the Gospel I have entered into has then impacted my personal spiritual journey, how I share about Christ with people, my vision for the mission of our church, and how I approach the task of discipleship. The implications of how we think about the core elements of our faith are staggering.
And so it seems to me that we all find ourselves in the interesting position of needing to hold fast to the truth we are sure of, and both live it and hold it out to others so God may use us to help others find the Way, yet also hold our convictions loosely so that God may correct our understandings or take them deeper. And of course the things that keep us from having a perfect handle on many elements of the truth are just what we've been talking about: our experiences, our culture, the limitations of language, etc.
I also think that we too often want to know the truth for the end of knowing the truth, when I think we should want to know the Truth so that we can find the Life and live in the Way.
Hey guys, I'm gonna take a stab at the truth thing.
What if we all believe in truth that is "so true" that we don't have to qualify it with "always," or "for everyone," or anything else that lessens it.
I think all of us in this group do. Where we may differ is (1) the presentation of the truth to others and (2) the nature of certainty and/or the nature of belief--what belief really is.
This blog exists because of sensitivities to #1. My view on #2 is that the goal of "absolute" isn't what the Scriptures teach about the nature of knowledge and life. It does not mean that faith is a leap to something completely non-cognitive. It just means that "absolute" was a technical term in the modern plausibility structure concerning the character of beliefs that Evangelicals used as an apologetic to try to fit with the "in" crowd.
Just in case I appear to be down on modern apologists, we would/have done the same thing.
"Mike, if you don't know if truth can be known, then (if your intellectually honest with yourself) then you must admit that the possibility exists that truth can be known."
Yes, of course. That's exactly what I was admitting when I said "I don't know". It is of course a possibility that we can know when we have the truth, but so far I personally don't know for sure that I do. And after studying many of the great philosophers and theologians in history, none of them have convinced me that they knew for sure either. But hey, if you have figured out a way to be "absolutely" sure, good for you.
And, just to clarify, the field of epistemology typically asks four questions:
1. Can we know?
2. Do we know?
3. How do we know?
4. How do we know we know?
You seem to be addressing #1. I am primarily addressing #4, and my answer is "I don't think we can 'know that we know'".
But that's a different question than "can we know?" It may very well be the case that we can know things, but that we can't know for sure when that knowledge is accurate or not. In which case, we would simply need to step out in faith on the things we think we know, but always be humbly prepared to rethink them if we find that perhaps we were wrong.
Mike,
I think the four questions of epistemology are helpful to the discussion.
This ties into the other conversation about academic training for ministry. Most seminary curriculum's have at least one (if not multiple) courses in systematic theology. But these courses may or may not get into questions addressed by your post.
I would love to see more seminaries include at least a course on basic philosophical questions. Many M.Div. programs are over 90 credits. You would think there would be room for at least a survey course in the basics of philosophy. Some probably include something along these lines. But I am fairly confident in saying that many schools wouldn't see this as a practical class and would therefore avoid including it in the curriculum.
Someone once said modern poetry is like playing tennis with the net down. I don't know if I agree with the assessment of modern poetry but I think theology requires a net so I appreciate Brian's "markers". Isn't that one of the purposes of "We Believe"?
MIke said,"In which case, we would simply need to step out in faith on the things we think we know, but always be humbly prepared to rethink them if we find that perhaps we were wrong." Well said.
My experience in philosophy is limited to a course on Spinoza that I audited at the University of Grenoble. So feel free to spell out some of the philosophical/epistomological backgrounds. (As I remember that was so long ago Spinoza had just died.)
Two recent books may speak to the i issues raised on this post. Tom Sine's "The New Conspirators" surveys some of the new expressions of church. His chapter on the emerging church can be downloaded at www.ivpress.com. Also by IVP is " I Once Was Lost" what postmodern skeptics taught us about their path to Jesus.
Have a blessed Easter.
Gee guys, how do you know those are even the right four questions to be asking?
Question four reminds me of a Dennis Leary comedy routine where he talks about smoking pot and asking questions like, "How do I know the color blue to you is the same color blue to me?"
Philosophy 101 Andrew... and feel free to add some more if you want. In fact Leary's question is actually a pretty good one, since it speaks to the fact that we really don't all perceive the world in exactly the same way.
Theology 101-The truth of God is revealed in His creation (General Revelation) and more specifically through His interactions with His creation, particularly the Bible(Special Revelation).
We know that which God does show.
Philosophy is fallen man trying to understand. Revelation is God making Himself known to man.
But do we all perceive that revelation in exactly the same ways? Or is our perception and interpretation of it colored by our context, experiences, vantage point etc.?
And again, how do we know when we've got it right?
Mike, I need to ask your forgiveness.
Just yesterday at lunch (ironically, about the time you were posting) I was complaining to someone about how I felt you had abandoned the conversation. I was surprised and encouraged to see your response. Please forgive me.
In regards to your question, general revelation speaks to a shared context. David wrote,
"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard." -Psalm 19
God speaks through general revelation to us who share the same perspective.
We are all inhabitants of His Creation.
We are all made in God's image.
We all are mortal.
We all live with a sinful nature. We are all human.
We are all finite minds that search for the infinite.
Paul tells us what may be known of God is obvious for God has shown it to us.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. -Romans 1
If you want to know if you have it right begin with God.
For the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge and the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding. -Proverbs
This comment has more to do with the original post by Bill Easum than the ongoing conversation between Andrew and Mike.
I wonder sometimes if we fail to recognize the difference between the phrases “everything should be questioned” and “everything must change”. I firmly believe that everything should undergo constant re-evaluation – that we must question everything. I believe that the world has changed dramatically over the past century (something explored in more detail in the seminary conversation). But do the changes in the world necessitate that “everything must change”?
I haven’t read McLaren’s book. I haven’t attended his conference. Maybe he is simply overstating the need for change in an effort to make a point. But on a smaller scale, I think we sometimes jump to the conclusion that just because the world has changed, everything else must change as well. (Yes, I do believe that there are times that change simply for the sake of change can be a good thing.)
One of the critiques of the emerging movement that I have encountered is that its proponents are too willing to dismiss the past in an effort to be “culturally relevant”.
The fact that the world has changed should call into question everything we know, everything we believe, and everything we do. We should welcome the questioning as a chance to reinforce those things that are essential and discard the unnecessary traditions and baggage of the past. But as the dust settles, there will be remnants of the past that remain. Perhaps the legacy of the Emerging Church will be that it caused everything to be re-evaluated. If that is the case, wonderful!
May I go as far as suggesting that the movement may be better referred to as the “Questioning Church” as opposed to the “Emerging Church”? I’m still not convinced that what is emerging now will remain in the future. I don’t know if new and lasting expressions of faith will remain from this emerging church experiment. Perhaps what will remain is a need to constantly re-examine the essentials of faith, culture, and the Church in an effort to faithfully follow Jesus into the future.
I have a unique vantage point (as Mike knows) with regard to the emerging movement, because I have been an avid reader of most of its thinkers, but have not felt the desire or need to become "emerging" in terms of label identification. Through my own journey with Christ over the last 30 years, I have learned that something you are thoroughly convinced of today you may question by next year. We all know this happens to us personally-- as we learn and understand more, our beliefs evolve. One of the things the emerging church thinkers are reminding us of is that this process also needs to happen corporately, but there is often resistance in the church to "revisiting questions we had considered answered long ago". Denominations and movements pen their doctrinal statements and woe to the man who questions them.
I agree with what Andrew said, that if you want to know if you have it right, start with God-- the fear of the Lord is indeed the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. The problem is that when I go to start with God, I am really starting with my perception of God. If it were as simple as reading the Bible and all the proper perspectives being obvious, I'm not sure we'd have thousands of "Bible-based" protestant denominations.
This is why I am personally so appreciative of thinkers like McLaren, N.T. Wright, etc... because they believe in and love the Jesus of the Gospels and his way, but are willing to wonder about everything else, and re-ask important questions. For me personally, this has been transforming, not least because the environment of permission to ask questions which they created for me has led to a reexamination of that most basic question, "What is the Gospel?", and to the conclusion that the Gospel of evangelicalism is a kind of half-Gospel focused on forgiveness and heaven almost to the exclusion of human transformation in the here and now. This is just one example, but an important one, because it is guys like this who are saying, "It's okay to wonder".
Brent raised the question of cultural relevance, and I'm not sure how he meant that, but the emergent thinkers are not so much concerned about cultural relevance in the sense the seeker movement has been, as much as concerned that rigid, fundamentalist and conservative evangelical versions of the faith have alienated people in western culture by painting a Jesus and a gospel not true to the Jesus of the Gospels. And I believe their concerns to be valid. In many ways, things they advocate (such as justice for the poor) are counter-cultural to both the present evangelical church and the broader culture.
I just think you have to be willing to keep asking, "Do I have Jesus right?" while you daily seek to live the best picture you have at this very moment. Paul preached "Christ crucified" with clarity and force, while also reminding us that "now we see through a glass darkly".
It just occurred to me that Paul himself must have been emergent. Obviously he saw "through a glass darkly" because he liked his Guinness.
(Sorry. Carry on) :)
Post a Comment
<< Home