April 20, 2006
-
The Emergent Church
What is it?
It is: a collective tendency to revise the teaching and operation of the Church, in more "liberal" directions... a reaction against perceived inadequacies in traditional Christianity and church life... a significant change in emphasis, whose supporters describe as "getting back to the life and teachings of Jesus" and the Early Church, but whose critics describe as an attempt to remake God Himself "in our own image."
Why does it exist? What is fueling it?
The movement in the church (primarily the Western church) comes as educated societies around the world are becoming deeply enamored with Postmodernism - the slow pendulum of global thought burgeoning toward relativism after the inexorable failure of the three-century-long modernist movement, and especially after the genocidal horror of the World Wars and the nuclear fears of the Cold War.
Globalization and the information explosion are also relevant factors, as the implicit question "How do you know that you are right?" stands out in sharp glare with the extreme contemporary diversity and physical proximity of religious and theological views. The Emergent Church's answer to that question has a distinct Buddhist flavor - "It doesn't matter whether you're right or not. The journey is more important than the destination."The actual content points of the movement are generally not new. They are merely contemporary rephrasements of modernist skeptical liberalism, in many of the same areas. The original higher-criticism has morphed into postmodern/cultural/deconstructivist criticism of the Scriptural texts, with a resulting similar view of the Scriptures. Open Theism is closely linked with the Emergent movement, as are discussions on homosexuality, the role of women in the church, the inerrancy (and relevancy) of Scripture, and questions on the exclusivity of Christ. It is no longer enough to show that the Scriptures teach something; it is also necessary to show the normative authority and "finality" of the Scriptures.
Other growth factors (especially in the USA) include the affluence of the younger generation and the regrettable pharisaical/anti-intellectual tendencies of some conservative churches. Persecution tends to clarify and disperse relativistic thinking, because only people who are utterly convinced that there is only one way to God will accept persecution and death for their stand... And the stigma of pharisaical conservatism raises an unfortunate backlash against doctrine and propositional truth. The strong element of reactionism gives the Emergent Church its emphasis on "wholistic," non-formulaic Christianity, including traditional monastic/Eastern-Orthodox elements and "cultural" Jewish etiological interpretations of the Scriptures.
Although there are some negative aspects of the Emergent Church, there are also positive elements such as a renewed emphasis on love, gentleness, and unity. Such emphases are reminiscent of Paul's request to the Philippians - "...Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others."
Where is it going?
Although only God knows what will happen according to His perfect plan, I see the Emergent Church continuing to "emerge" over the next decade or two, further broadening the public conception of what it means to be a "Christian". The true Biblical Church of those who are following Christ will not disappear, but it will be masked by a continuum of "nice christian people" who believe in everything from Mary to reincarnation. The wheat and the tares will live side by side, as the West becomes more pagan.
Biblical Christianity meanwhile will flourish around the world in spite of intense persecution. America will eventually face similar demographic trends as Europe, and within a few decades the Emergent Church will be primarily a historical phenomena, its insights merged into the mainstream. But the "mainstream" itself will begin to change drastically. The West will eventually see only three 'religious' views - timid secular pluralistic humanism, relatively pure Christianity, and Islam, and then as Jesus foretold "an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God." But the Lord God's true Church will "emerge" at the End unscathed and unsinged, because the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the one who is building and sustaining it, and "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."How ought true Christians to relate to it?
Accept what is good (Biblical) in the Emergent Church, and throw away what is counterfeit (un-Biblical) (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22). This will necessitate deep and sincere study of the Bible, to be able to discern God's unchanging truth and understand how to share it relevantly to a fast-changing culture.
The Emergent emphasis on love and unity can be assimilated by discerning Christians while simultaneously not neglecting to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 3)
Let us resolve to "be ready always to give an answer to any man who asks the reason for the hope that is within... yet with meekness and gentleness." (1 Peter 3:15)
Strife and dissension will come - let's not be afraid of it. Simultaneously, however, "as much as depends on you, live at peace with all men." (Romans 12:18)In sum, what we need in the Church today is not less doctrine, but more love.
Comments (4)
This link (http://bobfranquiz.typepad.com/bobfranquizcom/files/32_apastoralperspectiveontheemergentchurchdriscoll.PDF) is a fascinating article (by Mark Driscoll) that I read today about the Emergent Church... after which I wrote some of my own thoughts, above... I agree with some of what he writes and disagree with some... but he makes some interesting points...
excellent post tim. i appreciated it.
This is an example (Michael Card's book "Scribbling in the Sand") of a slightly emergent perspective, which tends to be more "artsy" from what I see of it. Michael writes of John 8 - Jesus' response to the adulterous woman.
"It was art and it was theater at the same time, but it was more. It was what he did not say that spoke most powerfully to the mob that morning. It was a cup of cold water for a thirsty adulteress and an ice cold drenching in the face to a group of angry Pharisees.
"To this day we have not the slightest idea what it was Jesus twice scribbled in the sand. By and large the commentaries have asked the wrong question through the ages. They labor over the content, over what he might have written. They ask what, without ever realizing the real question is why? It was not the content that mattered but why he did it. Unexpected. Irritating. Creative."
i haven't read this thoroughly yet, but i just wanted to reply with a quote that i read as i was reading a book called 'blue like jazz' by donald miller. i took a lot of what he said with a grain of salt, but there was one portion that i really enjoyed. it is as follows:
"A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America--about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and the human struggle. I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing."
(hopefully i will get around to reading this post more thoroughly at later time. thank you for posting this, though--i know of a local church that is emergent, very trendsetting, very "do whatever makes people comfortable", so that has raised some questions in my mind about the emergent church in general. offhand, "do whatever makes people feel comfortable" sounds dangerous to me. i am pretty certain that those who run the church would say that this is within reason and that they wouldn't conform to just anyone's opinions, but it does set a precedent that seems to rely on humans, not God. more later....
Comments are closed.