e-mer-gent - "in the process of coming into being"
I've been wondering. What exactly is it about the so-called "Emergent Church" that's so different from the neo-evangelical variety of Christianity that's been around since about 1940?
So far, my answer is "Nothing." What I mean is, most everything I've seen so far of what's called "emergent" is nothing more than the new face of evangelicalism.
No, I haven't read McLaren's book A New Kind of Christian. But what I have seen and heard from the leaders of "emerging churches" so far tells me that what we're looking at is new people offering an early-21st century take on evangelicalism.
Now, that can be exciting and invigorating. And it is. But it's not essentially different or new. What am I missing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Frank -
I have read your last three posts with great interest and feel the same ways you and your commenters do about all that is going on in churches of Christ in this time. I have been greatly discouraged about the local church here but greatly encouraged by the Spirit of God to minister in my own way to all I meet along the way as God's child and to share His good news, which is what evangelism is all about, if I'm not mistaken.
It certainly fits in with your outline of yesterday and what you have to say today.
Blessings to you todyay! Dee
Define "emergent" for me.
From my take on things, it is a bit more than just an early 21st century take on evangelicalism. And personally, I think you'd be better served by reading McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy than his other books, if you wanted to catch a wider glimpse of some of the ideas of the emerging/emergent/missional church. Probably one of the more interesting aspects is that some of the ideas are grounded in the concept that we need to bridge the gap that has formed (was created?) between sacred and secular. I could probably write a lot more, but I won't -- much smarter people than I have written volumes.
The same old evangelicalism in new clothes?
Perhaps some of the differences include (my words, not to be associated with others):
A chastened epistemology
A post-reformation/post-Protestant sensibility
A non-conversional understanding of evangelism (or a daily conversional understanding, to adopt the Benedictine language).
A willingness to dialogue and keep theology in process rather than fixed.
A Christianity that is no longer enslaved by modernity's assumptions.
A wholistic understanding of the Gospel that is more than "sin management" (to use Dallas Williard's term).
A non-Constantinian understanding of being the church.
While these characteristics are not exclusive to what is called the emerging church, that would b part of the point. In some ways the movement is more ancient in practice than evangelicalism ever has been, but not simply due to a pragmatic or market-driven sense to adopt "new practices" - but to embrace more than the rejectionist stance of protestantism, and the limited horizon of evangelicialism as a slice of protestantism.
I believe that each of the characteristics I listed above has a distinct difference from the evangelical norm, if it is possibe to make such generalizations. Another difference might be a questioning of the position of sola scriptura as sufficient now that the intellectual confidence of the Enlightenment has lost its credibility. Protestants rejected an infallible pope, and put the Bible in the position of speaking ex cathedra - and quickly divided the church into numerous denominations. Evangelicals tend to believe that the Bible speaks unilaterally rather than in community - though Paul calls the church the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
But now we have come around to my original suggestion that there is a chastened epistemology with many "who-are-becoming."
I don't reading McLaren is the same as understanding what is happening, for he is only one voice in a leaderless phenomenon. But that would be a start.
Post a Comment