For Those on the Brian McLaren/Emergent Watch . . .

Oh my goodness.  According to a post by Keith Pavlischek at First Thoughts, McLaren is upset to have been accused by the Daily Kos crowd of helping pass the Stupak amendment to the House healthcare bill.  In other words, he is quick to disassociate himself and "Christian progressives" from any attempt to prevent the federal government from funding abortions!!!!!

Wow.  To paraphrase the Beatles, if this is what you mean by emergent, don't you know that you can count me out?

Comments

[Julana]

I wonder how many people MacLaren thinks he is speaking for? I think the group he seems to think he is representing is still fluid and is not homogenous.

[Christopher Hathaway]

"Christian Progressives". Hmmmm. I think only half of that description fits. It should be "Progressives in favor of some Christian doctrine.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

I think the same way about "Christian conservatives," even though I am one. "Traditional" or (lower-case) "orthodox" is better than a term associated more with politics than beliefs.

So, what should we call "progressive" Christians instead?
Oh, I don't know. Heretics? Apostates? Works for me.

[William Tighe]

For me too.

[Beth from TN]

Would this be a good place for someone to give a brief and genuinely helpful explanation of the "emergent church" movement? I never feel that I really understand what it is. Is it the same as the "simple church" movement I've been hearing about? Maybe there is a good explanation someone could link to?

[Michael]

Beth--

The "emergent church" is not the same as the "simple church", and it is not so easily defined with hard and fast ideas. Broadly, emergent Christianity is concerned with living out the Christian faith in a postmodern society. This means they view their faith as a "conversation" between believers with little in the way of a delineated authoritative hierarchy, even with regards to something as simple as congregational pastors. With the premise of postmodernism being a lack of objective truth, emerging christianity takes the Wesleyan quadrilateral and makes every single corner equal--experience is equal to scripture is equal to logic is equal to tradition. Of course, the moment you make experience "equal" to scripture and tradition, it ends up trumping them due to the underlying personal bias.

Theologically, the movement has a narrative approach to scripture. Thus, everything is unfolding as a story, and we haven't reached the ending yet. The canon may or may not be closed depending on who you ask, and if it is closed, it may or may not have a "living" element to it (like the constitution) to be interpreted over time.

I've heard some emergent speakers describe the emergent Christian as "missional." That is, they live their entire lives as an outreach mechanism--which, y'know, is sort of what the entirety of the New Testament is about. But the emergents are egotistical and seem to think this is a new discovery, or that we traditional Christians are just really bad at it because the organized church structure is, um, bad and stuff.

Phyllis Tickle has described the emergent church as a blending of all the major threads in Christianity--pentecostalism, episcopalian, scriptural--into a soup, and a movement away from Scripture as the rule of faith. During a presentation at Youth Specialties' 2008 National Youth Workers Convention in Sacramento, Tickle called the emerging church the latest instance in a ~500-year cycle of reformation (Nicea-->Great Schism-->Luther-->Emergents). It would take a long time to list all the things that annoyed me about that speech, and it would probably become a rant against the gross historical inaccuracies, theological caricatures and disturbing suggestions made therein.

To put it shortly, the emergent church is a movement committed to "missional" living within postmodern society. In practice, this includes a great deal of liberal theology and alternative approaches to worship. I've been to an emergent gathering with people painting in one corner while mellow, reflective "worship" music was presented. Then, I've been to an emergent gathering that sought to get closer to God through mystic ritual in a traditional sense: corporate confession, liturgy and prayer walking.

The "simple church" movement, meanwhile, isn't about theology or practice but administrative structure. The book (Simple Church by Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger) describes bringing people into the church through outreach, learning to live with them in community, and as they become more involved with the church, moving them along. Live-->Learn (at which point they start engaging in deeper theological discussion)-->Love (where they engage in active service). The "simple church" movement is about streamlining the process to get people toward actively engaging in the Christian life of loving service.

[David L]

A sincere question, to Michael and anyone else who cares to address it:

Granted that "emergent" Christians also see themselves as missional, are all missional Christians also "emergent"?

I ask this because I belong to a small denomination, previously sectarian evangelical with a strong ethnic component, now defining itself as "missional." Does that mean the "emergent" element will willy-nilly become a integrated into my denomination's spiritual and theological self-identity?

I'm assuming here, based on the discussion so far, that I do not want to be "emergent." Put another way, is "missional" a slippery slope to "emergent"?

[Michael]

David L,

Honestly, no, I do not think so. I think being "missional" is demanded of any Christian. It is right that we live our lives in emulation of Christ as a witness to others, and love them as a form of outreach. A church can be "missional"--focus on missions--without being theologically liberal. As I said, I've been to emergent gatherings that used traditional approaches to worship (and if lex orendi, lex credendi, then the practices of such a church certainly belie a fairly amenable creed).

I think the big red flag is when "missional" becomes "conversant" with society. The Church is prophetic; it speaks truth into the world. It does not rationalize and try to seek a middle ground with it. I would recommend, quite honestly, seeing if there is a significant shift in the Church's doctrinal statements. Missions are a lot more about practice than theology.

[Micah Watson]

I think Michael's given a very solid answer.

I would only add a couple of things that go along with it. One, given the very nature of emergent thinking as narrative-driven and suspicious of "metanarratives", it's hard to pin down exact lines on what is and is not emergent. A resistance to hard and fast definition is part of what drives the movement.

Second, there's a great book called "Why We're Not Emergent by two guys who should be," available here: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Not-Emergent-Should/dp/0802458343 They came to Union's campus last year and were great.

Finally, I think the main thing to discern with self-identifying emergent Christians is this. Are they looking at how the culture has changed and THEN trying to find new ways to present and live out the original gospel entrusted to the Church? Or are they taking their notion of the gospel and trying to make it fit according to the winds of the contemporary culture?

The answer to that question makes all the difference.

[David L]

Thanks, Michael and Micah, for your thoughtful responses.

[Whitestone]

Why if McLaren weren't pro-abortion, he would not be the darling of the Episcopal Church and Canterbury Communion and he wouldn't get invited to speak at Lambeth and to have tea with the Queen.

[Rob G]

"Why if McLaren weren't pro-abortion, he would not be the darling of the Episcopal Church and Canterbury Communion and he wouldn't get invited to speak at Lambeth and to have tea with the Queen."

Bingo. Emergentism is all about being liked by the liberal elite. It claims to speak truth to power, but it speaks only some truth to certain powers, namely the ones that can't affect its quest for prestige.

[Geoff Willour]

In essence "emergentism" is muddle-headed theological liberalism dressed up in newer, postmodern garb. It is an old heresy that wraps itself in postmodern lingo to appear "profound." But it is neither new nor profound. "There is nothing new under the sun." It is a fad that I suspect will soon pass away into utter irrelevancy. (And may it rest in peace.)

The antidote to emergentism is a robust Christianity that is biblical, confessional, and creedal - a Christianity founded on the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Karl]

Just another instance of religion catching the marxist virus.