On The Emergent Church

The Emerging Church, what is it?

I have no idea! Well, actually, I have some idea, but nothing that can be nailed down and solidified. I cannot say – neither can anyone else I think – precisely what the Emergent Church is. I’ll say it here for the first time, and I’ll probably say it again and again in future blogs: defining the Emerging Church – who they are and what they believe – is akin to nailing Jell-O to a wall.

I pick up books like Phyllis Tickles, the Great Emergence, and – being the historical buff that I am – I love it. Tickle is a cultural analyst and the book is a look at where we’ve come from (analyzing the past) in an attempt to determine where exactly we are and where it is we are going. Oddly enough, this book is endorsed on the one hand by a post-conservative theologian, Scot McKnight, and on the other hand by a Lesbian Ordination Supporter, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori (she’s not just Reverend, she’s the Most Reverend for heaven’s sake!)

I picked up two books by Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy and Secret Message of Jesus, and failed on both accounts, to finish them (I will try again in due time, I’m stubborn that way). McLaren seems, on nearly all accounts, to love a good game of dodge ball, especially if the balls that are being thrown at him are tough theological “where do you stand on these issues” questions! You just never know where this guy is coming from.

Theologian, Scot McKnight, is said to be Emergent (or Emerging – see below); at the very least he is sympathetic towards the Emerging Church. I enjoy his post-conservative thoughts on the Atonement (though I don’t agree with his entire position) in A Community Called Atonement, but more to the context of this discussion, he has two articles in the September’s issue of Christianity Today, one on the Emerging Church, the other on McLaren’s Emerging Theology. I enjoyed his light criticism of McLaren’s theology; let me quote a paragraph:

“I wish more believers would follow McLaren’s cue and think about the implications of the Bible for global and systemic issues; that Christians would return to the Bible and ask, “What, then is the gospel?” as well as it’s necessary follow-up, “How do we live out the gospel today?” For far too many, the gospel preached is not leading to any serious engagement with the global crises of our time.
“But that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions about McLaren’s theology.”
Scot McKnight, McLaren Emerging, in September ’08 issue of Christianity Today, p.62

McKnight goes on to pose tough questions to McLaren on Clarity, on the Cross, on the Kingdom and on the Church. I like this guy, he’s open to the good which the Emerging Church may be offering us, while simultaneously challenging its flimsy foreskin!

I tried – twice now and both times to no avail – to read An Emergent Manifesto of Hope edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The reason – I believe – that I was not able to get through it was 1. It was so full of crap – def. k-rap means nothing, empty, hallow, void of substance etc. etc. – crap; and 2. For all of its many words, it lacks anything for anyone to grab a hold of (which I suppose is the point).

Then there are those who always distinguish between Emergent Christianity and Emerging Christianity. The difference? Beats me.

Then there are Emergent “leaders” (I have one in particular in mind) who has gone so far as to claim proudly that he is a “Christian Panenthiest” (god is in all things) and recently I’ve picked up a book by Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing In) who’s theology is so full of crap (see definition for “crap” above) that it makes me wonder how these guys can hold on to any truth what-so-ever. (Oddly enough this book is wildly endorsed by a Post Conservative Pastor and absolutely brilliant theologian, Greg Boyd, one can only wonder how.)

Then, to my surprise, I come across respected theologians who are considered “Emergent” in many respects because of their use of the prefix “re” in their theology (rethinking Paul, rethinking Heaven, rethinking Justification etc). I have in mind here conservative theological heavy-weight scholar, N.T. Wright, who opposes same-sex union and fights for a High View of scripture, but is challenging many popular Christian concepts such as Eschatology, Election, Paul, Scripture etc., to the point of angering other heavy-weights such as John Piper (see Pipers, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright).

And I wonder; how can you put a conservative minister like Wright in the pond called Emergent (or Emergence) with guys like Doug Pagitt and his Panenthiest buddy? What is Emergence for heaven’s sake!? (Jell-O to a wall)

Then I pick up an interesting book off the shelf called, “Why We Are Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be”, and I’m intrigued. In the introduction the authors begin a list… and on and on… for about two pages. The list goes like this: If you like…, if you believe…, if you agree…., if you read approvingly…, etc. etc., and it continues like that for nearly two pages while I’m going: “yes I agree with that… Well I kind of agree with that... I do agree with that... I don’t really agree with that... Yes I read this person... I would say yes to that...” then the authors conclude, if you’ve agreed to most of this, then you just may be Emergent”. I’m going “aaaaahhh”, especially because about two months before a friend of mine had demonized anything having to do with the Emerging Church with a disdain akin to running from leprosy, and here I just may be one.

My point with this blog is to address the reason why I have not written a blog on the Emergent Church up to this point – I’m not clear as to what or who they are exactly. It is also to give a word of caution the next time someone wishes to lump all Emergent thinkers and sympathizers into a giant liberal shark tank of “church haters”. For after a short quiz they may discover themselves, that they too are Emergent.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com