Why I’ve joined the “emerging conversation”

By now, those of you who have known me for many years may have noticed that I think a bit differently than I used to. Like a lot of twenty-somethings who grew up in the conservative evangelical subculture, I’ve been increasingly drawn to the emerging church movement.

(If you are unfamiliar with the emerging church, you might want to check out this article from Christianity Today, written by Scot McKnight. The movement is hard to define, but I think McKnight does a good job of addressing its major characteristics.) 

Some of you will probably identify. You might have read some Dan Kimball or Tony Jones or Brian McLaren and found yourself thinking, as I did, “Yes! That’s exactly how I feel; I’m so glad someone else is asking these questions!” Others of you may think I’ve gone off the deep end, that I’ve rejected Christian orthodoxy, embraced relativism, and will probably run off to some Indian ashram to mediate for a few years with my fellow hippies. 

I can assure you that the latter is based more on popular misrepresentations of the emerging church movement than on the actual thoughts and attitudes of most of those who consider themselves a part of it, including myself. However, I understand why there are some concerns about the emerging church, as I myself have experienced some of its problems. So I want to address not only what I love about the emerging church, but also what I see as its potential pitfalls.

So, what is so appealing to me, personally, about the emerging church? A few things:

1. Freedom to ask hard questions. What first attracted me to emerging church writers and speakers was their willingness to confront difficult theological issues and even challenge traditional evangelical doctrine. For years I struggled with doubts about my faith, and through the emerging church movement, I found people who were asking the very same questions-about religious pluralism, the Problem of Evil, inerrancy, the notion of absolute truth, etc. Rather than resorting to the same old answers I’d heard over and over again from Christian apologists, emerging church writers were taking new approaches, approaches that particularly appealed to me as an avid reader and writer with a postmodern bent.

The problem “emergers” may run into is that, while deconstructing is a valuable and important part of bringing about reform and making the Church better, tearing down is always easier than building up. I find myself spending a lot of time picking apart fundamentalism, when I ought to be focusing on building bridges and seeking common ground. .

2. Embrace of postmodernism. For years I was told by Christian apologists that postmodernism was evil and that it represented an enormous threat to Christianity. However,  once I actually started reading what postmodern theorists had to say, their ideas made a lot of sense to me. One of my biggest frustrations with conservative evangelicalism right now is that many of its leaders tend to oversimplify and misrepresent postmodernism. I feel like writers and speakers in the emerging church have done a better job of explaining  postmodernism and exploring how it can actually enrich and contribute to Christianity.

Of course, postmodernism has its problems. For example, while I love the fact that many in the emerging church have embraced a more inclusive attitude toward religious pluralism, we don’t want to follow the postmodern tendency to ignore or gloss over the significant differences that exist among the world’s religions. Claiming that all religions are more or less the same and equally truthful is just creating yet another metanarrative that fails to represent the very real religious convictions of people around the world.

3. Emphasis on orthopraxy over orthodoxy. I love how the emerging church movement has encouraged me to focus more on following Jesus Christ and less on being right about theology. I think that in this way, the emerging church is seeking to correct what has been a bit of an over-emphasis on apologetics and doctrine within the conservative evangelical community in recent years. I personally have felt challenged by emerging church writers to more faithfully follow Jesus in caring for the poor, ministering to the sick, exercising spiritual self-control, and being more cautious about passing judgments on others.

Some say that the danger here is that the emerging church will throw theology and doctrine out altogether.  I don’t think that’s going to be a problem because, despite arguing that right theology doesn’t necessarily lead to stronger faith, a lot of us emergers still love to talk about it. To me, the more looming danger is hypocrisy. Daily I find myself slipping into those same old habits of judging people based on their theological positions and spending more time reading and writing about Jesus than actually building  relationship with Him and loving “the least of these.” If “emergers” are going to emphasize the importance of Christ-likeness, it is imperative that we treat everyone (including those with whom we disagree) with the kindness, humility, and graciousness of our Lord.

4. It’s not about who’s “in” and who’s “out.” For years I struggled with the idea that conservative evangelical Christians had a monopoly on truth and that everyone else in the world faced likely damnation. I like that many in the emerging church movement seem to recognize that God is at work among all people and that we should respect and be open to learning from people with other ideas and beliefs.

However, it sometimes seems like this is an attitude that “emergers” apply to everyone except fundamentalists. The tone of our blogs and books can get a little testy when criticizing our more conservative brothers and sisters. We have to be careful not to apply a kind of reversed legalism toward those with whom we disagree.

Those are just some of my thoughts about the emerging church. I’ll definitely be posting more about it in the future. What do you think? What have your encounters with the emerging church been like? Positive or negative? A little bit of both?

I’m open to your ideas and opinions!


James Ludwig
Comment
Emerging church
Reply #1 on : Mon April 07, 2008, 21:07:00
Rachel please do not be deceived. What you have found it a group that exploits the bad points of the evangelical church and evangelical Christian to promote a Christianity without the divinity of of Jesus Christ. It is a classic satanic ploy to get man into heaven based on his own works and goodness not the goodness of Jesus Christ and accepetance of HIM. The problem is the lack of good action by those after becoming Christian not in the message of the necessity of accepting Christ. Further orthodoxy after that should be shown through orthopraxy. That does not change the essential point of if Christ was not who He said he was then he was just a crazy man who died for nothing. Please do not be deceived by these good sounding movements they have been around for two thousand years. Accept the essential tenent and mandate of Christianity to accept Jesus as Savior as the only method of receiving eternal life then live as if salvation was earned as it says in James that "faith without works is dead"
It has been the tendancy of many denominations ot ignore this part of the gospel. God is the only one who has the right to determine who gets eternal life as opposed to no longer existing after death which is what I tend to believe about the unsaved as the alternative.

"In versus out: An admittedly controversial element of post-evangelicalism is that many in the emerging movement are skeptical about the "in versus out" mentality of much of evangelicalism. Even if one is an exclusivist (believing that there is a dividing line between Christians and non-Christians), the issue of who is in and who is out pains the emerging generation.

Some emerging Christians point to the words of Jesus: "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). Others, borrowing the words of the old hymn, point to a "wideness in God's mercy." Still others take postmodernity's crushing of metanarratives and extend that to master theological narratives—like Christianity. They say what really matters is orthopraxy and that it doesn't matter which religion one belongs to, as long as one loves God and one's neighbor as one's self. Some even accept Spencer Burke's unbiblical contention in A Heretic's Guide to Eternity (Jossey-Bass, 2006) that all are born "in" and only some "opt out."
Bethany (Perseghetti) Wright
Comment
Confused
Reply #2 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 08:37:13
Rachel -

Interesting thoughts that you've put forth. The last week has held a ton of conversation with my family and friends about the emerging church, particularly with all the unrest going on at a respected local Christian university -- unrest associated with this issue.

I've never been good at understanding and differentiating between theologies. My brain works in concrete ways and struggles to understand abstract/theological explanations that aren't backed up with a "for example." Philosophy class was brutal in college for this reason. :)

I guess I'm trying to see how evangelical Christianity and the emerging church are really that different. Why the controversy? I read the Christianity Today article you posted and at the end could only draw one conclusion -- isn't this non-denominational Christianity already? Is this just a backlash against what some feel is a "lifeless" denominational/hierarchal tradition? I'm not asserting with these questions -- I'm asking.

How has your views of Christianity changed since aligning with the emerging church?

Would you say that our alma mater is attached to the emerging church?

Struggling to make sense of it ...
-Bethany
Bethany (Perseghetti) Wright
Comment
P.S.
Reply #3 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 08:39:23
James --

Next time you take two paragraphs of someone's writing and insert it for your own thoughts, make sure you cite it. Plagiarism, man.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=5

-Bethany
Comment
Some important clarifications
Reply #4 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 11:34:55
Good questions, Bethany.

To be clear, I’ve never encountered an emerging church leader who did not affirm the deity of Christ and salvation by faith. I too affirm these central Christian teachings found within the Nicene Creed. While more conservative Christians may disagree with some of the theological or political positions of people in the emerging church, I think it is unfair to characterize the movement as anti-Christian or heretical when its participants embrace these fundamental, creedal tenants of the faith.

I think what has happened here is that “fundamentalism,” as an evangelical position, has begun to include a lot of things that some of us doubt are in fact fundamental to the Christian faith, like young earth creationism, conservative republican politics, exclusivism (the idea that salvation is available only to those who explicitly express faith in Jesus Christ), the scientific and historical inerrancy of Scripture, eternal damnation of sinners, etc. The thing is, many of these subjects have been up for debate for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years, with a lot of good Christian theologians disagreeing about them. (For example, folks have been discussing the destiny of the unevangelized since the early days of the church. What about those who never heard about Christ? Are they punished for eternity? And is anyone really punished eternally or does God actually eradicate sin altogether by destroying hell and its inhabitants? And is the point of being a Christian to get into heaven in the first place, or is there more to it?) These are the sorts of questions that the emerging church is addressing.

Part of what makes the “emerging conversation” confusing is that there is such a wide range of views found within it. Some are more "liberal" than others, but most can be characterized by the attitudes I describe in my post and by Scot McKnight’s article.

For the more liberal, “emergent” view, (different from “emerging;” yes, it’s pretty confusing), you might want to check out Tony Jones’ book, “The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier” or (one of my favorite books) Brian McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy.”

“The New Conspirators” by Tom Sine is perhaps more representative of the majority of people in the general emerging church movement. I haven’t read it myself, but I believe he talks about the church being more missional, inclusive, and community-oriented.

You might also want to check out “How to be Evangelical Without Being Conservative.” Scot McKnight recommends this book and I'd like to read it.

Personally, my thoughts as a follower of Christ have changed in a lot of ways, not because I started reading about the emerging church, but because I started having doubts and questions of my own long before I’d ever heard of the movement. I’d go into more detail, but that’s what this blog is about, so read on!

As far as the alma mater is concerned, I’ve met some people from Bryan who hate the emerging church and some people who love it. Honestly, as with any Christian denomination or movement, I just think it appeals to certain personalities and dispositions more than others. I have no hard feelings toward those who don’t like it. All I ask for is their kindness and respect.

Anyone else who is familiar with the emerging church should feel free to comment on this as well, especially if you think you can help clarify its distinctives
James Ludwig
Comment
Emerging church
Reply #5 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 17:19:52
Bethany those were not meant to be my thoughts at all. They were placed after my thoughts. I am most accustomed to responding to email and was using this as if quoted in an email as it was what I was referencing. You may have noticed from my thoughts that I would not agree with those thoughts.
Mitch
Comment
Emerging Church
Reply #6 on : Tue April 08, 2008, 23:38:12
Rachel said,"To be clear, I’ve never encountered an emerging church leader who did not affirm the deity of Christ and salvation by faith."

I agree. The problem is that they deconstruct and redefine the words "deity", "salvation", and "faith". They use the same words, they just don't mean the same thing. In postmodern theory, since the reader brings their own meaning (or interpretive community's meaning) to everything, they can use the same words but not mean the same thing.

Not only is this considered valid, but anyone who then says, "no, that's not what those words mean" runs into serious problems. They become targeted as prideful, arrogant, or judgmental, and frequently categorized as Phariseees. It is much deeper than just interpretation, it is a view of truth and an assault on language as being able to communicate.

What is reassuring however is that while people claim this to be true in theological and moral discussion, it has reached the culture (yet) in many other areas. People don't actually believe that if they redefined the wording of the laws on paying taxes that they can exempt themselves. If they do belive this, they quickly find themselves fined or in jail. The same with business. Someone that argues vehemently that words are totally open to interpretation and only have meaning if we give it to them still carefully check over the contract (and have their lawyer do so) on the purchase of their next house. Postmodernism breaks down in the reality of our everyday life.

The emerging church liberally deconstructs the Bible and offers alternative explanations for all things theological. They do so because it works in our culture that WANTS to be free to determine its own origin, meaning, morality, and destiny (to steal from Dr. Brown). A day will come when those arguments will look foolish before the God who created all things, gave them a purpose in glorifying Him,established moral laws in keeping which His character, and will be judged to everlasting blessing or cursing for all eternity.

In closing, I appreciated Rachel's thoughtful critique of the emerging movement. I obviously still do not agree with some of the positives she has noted. However her willingness to discuss and honesty about her positions are highly commendable.

Quick critiques:

I think the emerging church is afraid to ask hard questions about sin, hell, judgment, holiness, and repentence.

Postmodernism emphasizes relationship which is a valuable strenght that the church needs. However it is messing with the revealed character of God and the gospel which the church can not and must not tolerate.

Orthopraxy and orthodoxy are presented by the emerging church as mutually exclusive. They are not. Right orthodoxy should lead to right orthodpraxy. Many within in the emerging church are reacting to poor orthopraxy by throwing out orthodoxy. They must do this because the very view of truth presented in postmodern thought makes it impossible to arrive at orthodoxy since all truth is ultimately defined by the reader / hearer. The Bible clearly teaches both should be in the lives of a follower of Jesus.

"In" and "out" is not something the church came up with. It's something God came up with consistently teaches from Noah and his family (In) to the everyone else at that time (Out), to those with blood on the doorpost (In) to those without (Out), to the theif who confessed faith in Jesus (In) to the one who cursed Him (Out), to many other examples and teachings in the Bible (unless you reinterpret all of those passages which many in the emerging church are doing). Those who are "In" are to die, figuratively and literally, to bring those who are "Out", "In".
James Ludwig
Comment
Emerging church
Reply #7 on : Wed April 09, 2008, 22:25:07
Great presentation of thought Mitch. Rachel is going through the common thought process of her age group. As Winston Churchill so profoundly put it “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I was once a liberal as were most conservatives. No we never lost our hearts but our minds matured to know that liberalism does not work. We want in our hearts to think that God must be in our box. God transcends us. If we could have, through our own good works as the emergents teach, been made righteous then Christs coming would never have been needed. I do not believe in predestination but believe very strongly in God's forknowledge. God knows who would have and who would not have accepted him and anyone who would, will be given the opportunity. To never have heard of Christ is much better than to reject Him after knowing. They will be held less accountable in whatever happens with God's judgement day.
Comment
Well...
Reply #8 on : Thu April 10, 2008, 09:30:53
James, I think the Churchill Centre would disagree with you about the quote...
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112
(you can also click my name to visit it)

According to that page, not only did Churchill not say it, he wouldn't agree with it. It seems decidedly less profound if that's true.

Also, I would argue the issues Rachel raises in her posts are still in heated debate among those with many more years under their belt. With that in mind, to dismiss these thoughts with a been-there-done-that frame of mind simply doesn't make sense to me.
Jason
Comment
Bible Thought
Reply #9 on : Sat April 12, 2008, 15:04:29
Most theological debates come down to two questions...Is the Bible completely true and perfect in every statement?...And, How do I determine what is literal or symbolic? How you determine the answers to these questions make up most, not if all of your theology. Most modern movements find their cause <theology of thought> in taking most Scripture as symbolic and therefore, they must apply their own interpretations to the situation.

While I agree that some aspects of the Scriptures can not be taken literal, I believe that some modern movements take too many Scriptures and apply symbolic interpretation. Most Scripture means what is says. John 14:6 - Jesus - "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one can come unto the Father, but by Me." Without Jesus you will never see the Father.

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code