For some time now the terms Emerging Church, Emergent Village, Postmodern Church, etc. have been showing up on my radar. Sounded interesting, so I decided to check it out. After a fair amount of research I still can't figure out what this really is. It seems to have no real definition other than most of those involved don't like wherever it was they came from.
Now that is nothing new, and in some ways is refreshing. I came in through the Jesus People movement in the early 70s. One of our badges of honor was NOT being the traditional church. We saw it different. We did it different. While the mainline churches scoffed, ridiculed, and preached against us, we reached into a culture that rejected many of the mainstream "values". We also made huge mistakes. What remained constant and unchangeable was the centering in Jesus, salvation through the cross, and the authority of scripture.
I like the emphasis on social justice and action. All evidence I can find in scripture says Jesus is right there with you. But there is a reason for it and improving the general life experience is not in an of itself the goal. Restoration to the Father is.
I like the "conversation" part of this. I think everyone has something to contribute to the collective church consciousness. It is also a great tool for discovering truth. I am a big believer in the concept that those who seek Truth will find it. For creating truth? Not so much. Not everything I think or add to the conversation is right, even if it is popular.
Now that is nothing new, and in some ways is refreshing. I came in through the Jesus People movement in the early 70s. One of our badges of honor was NOT being the traditional church. We saw it different. We did it different. While the mainline churches scoffed, ridiculed, and preached against us, we reached into a culture that rejected many of the mainstream "values". We also made huge mistakes. What remained constant and unchangeable was the centering in Jesus, salvation through the cross, and the authority of scripture.
I like the emphasis on social justice and action. All evidence I can find in scripture says Jesus is right there with you. But there is a reason for it and improving the general life experience is not in an of itself the goal. Restoration to the Father is.
I like the "conversation" part of this. I think everyone has something to contribute to the collective church consciousness. It is also a great tool for discovering truth. I am a big believer in the concept that those who seek Truth will find it. For creating truth? Not so much. Not everything I think or add to the conversation is right, even if it is popular.
The cross still stands as the entry way to relationship with Christ. Without it you really don't have anything. Adoption of the right life philosophies mean nothing without it. Social action is empty if in the end the beneficiaries are in hell. Spiritual conversation is just blathering unless it helps point me to Jesus as the author of faith. Everything we do and everything we are about should serve to point others to Him.
I thought I would feel good about this movement. I still want to. I am hoping it is this generation's incarnation of what we did. And maybe it is. But after reading and researching, I can't figure out where this movement stands on any of the important absolutes. Can't they just say plainly where they stand? I am left wondering if obfuscation is the point?
And that troubles me.
4 comments:
JohnnyG,
I think your right that there are a lot of parallels between the emergent movement and the Jesus movement of the early 70's. I am sure that we emergent will make our fair share of mistakes too, but in the end I hope and believe that this conversation will be a positive thing.
When it comes to the "absolutes" you may struggle with were emergent's are coming from. To most of us the only ABSOLUTE truth, is the God/person Jesus Christ. Truth is a person, not to be possessed and mastered in the way a western modern lens speaks of "knowing" truth, but Truth is a person that I know as I relate to him. When I know the truth this way I come to understand that I am also known by Truth; which may be even more important.
Emergent post-modern followers of Jesus are less likely to claim to have absolute knowledge and understanding concerning what is true compared to their modern parents. Emergent Christians do confess the person of Christ as truth and most hold to everything in our most ancient creeds which has been the standard for Christian orthodoxy for centuries.
Obfuscation is certainly not the point or what is going on at all. But I think it can be misinterpreted as such when people insist that the gospel is exclusive to a modern western construct and lens.
Peace,
James
James,
Thanks for the clarifications. I will agree that too many Christians claim absolute truth in areas that they have no business doing so.
I also think you are right on the money with the observation that Truth is not a "possession", so to speak. Jesus said "I am the way, the Truth and the life". When we know him we know truth.
One of my major questions is how emergents approach the issue of salvation. The other half of Jesus' statement quoted above is "No one comes to the Father except through me". Do emergents hold to this?
The cross is also very important. The sacrifice and shedding of His blood opened the door to His grace and removed the barrier between us and God. Do emergents hold to this as well?
Beyond these concepts, and possibly a few others, I think the field is wide open for expressions of Christianity. For me the litmus test would be whether or not we are pointing others to Jesus or not. It would seem to me that anything else would just be substituting our own version of a religious lifestyle.
JohnnyG,
You are right when you say that when we know Christ, we know truth; not in a possessive way, but in a relational way.
As for Jesus being the Way- Everyone I have ever talked to and read in the emergent church believes that Jesus is the only Way. I think then the question only comes in how this plays out. Even Christianity as a religion can assume aspects of that Way beyond Christ himself. I think it is in these type of conversations that it becomes uncomfortable for many as it often threatens their religious paradigms.
As for the cross- Contrary to some criticism emergents do not deny the cross or the atonement through Christ. There has been some dissatisfaction and rejection of the specific atonement theory of penal substitution. This can sound to some, that do not understand that their are many orthodox theories of atonement, like rejecting this one theory is rejecting the cross and atonement as a whole. But this simply is not the case. Disagreement about atonement theories is not a rejection of the atonement but how such a great mystery works.
Those that claim emergents reject atonement tend to be those who primarily see atonement as penal substitution theory. There are other historical orthodox ways of looking at atonement such as ransom theory, satisfaction theory, christus victor and "recapitulation" to name a few.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
James
James,
Thanks for the enlightenmnent. It clears up some stuff. I have seen excess and border crossing in just about every "movement" for the last 30 years. I am not put off by it, although it can definitely divert attention from the core issues.
I am not sure I grasp your point about specific penal substitution. Nor am I familiar with all the different theories surrounding it. Some of it sounds like splitting hairs. As long as salvation by grace and not by acts is left intact, then I probably don't have much issue with it.
Thanks for your input!
Post a Comment