Besides my role in New Testament, I also comment from time to time on cultural developments in Christianity. Some touch on Jesus. I have just finished work on an essay on Christology and the Emergent Movement for a book on that movement that will be a collection of essays on a variety of topics. In fact, I titled my piece Emergent Christologies to show the diversity of views among emergents. How is Jesus being portrayed in that context? For the most part, he plays out well. This movement has more to do with raising questions about authenticity, doing church in some innovative ways, and being missional than trying to rewrite some of the faith's doctrines.
With a few emergents, however, there seems to be a penchant to want to express things with fresh emphases alongside a hesitation to embrace past, formal theological expressions about Jesus. For the most part, this did not include challenging the idea of a Trinity. This was encouraging to see. However, there was some seeming hesitation on discussion about the person of Jesus as human and divine at the level of His person. There was the suggestion that it was problematic to use Greek philosophical terms to help explain such ideas and that the results were impersonal, deatched, abstract theological claims. Now these ideas do remain somewhat shrouded in mystery, even after the explanation and use of the terms, but there are excellent historic reasons why this kind of care was introduced into theological reflection about Jesus. Some of these emergents also sometimes complained about the language of sacrifice, atonement and judgment.
The most challenging wing among the Emergents some have called the "revisionists". It was this group that generally engaged in this kind of out loud thinking and questioning. The name revisionsits is not mine but comes from others who have looked at the movement., even some who are in it. Revisionsts are a part of the movement that tends to take a look at everything and reexamine it, even at times suggesting how everything must change. Here is a brief thought written for reflection by them and by those thinking about what they have to say:
"I think what we see from revisionists is a call for better balance in our theology, a little more humility about its expression and complexity, embracing that we do not have all of the detailed answers, and a passionate pursuit of living out what Jesus and those close to Him called for from those who are His followers. This appeal is worth hearing. On the other side, conservative critiques to the revisionists are saying, the movement away from proposition toward incarnation carries great risk and harm if it becomes too detached, so please, as brothers and sisters, tread carefully here. Both proposition and incarnation are crucial, not just one or not even one more than the other, because even incarnated life is lived out from value, perspectives, and ideas that one holds as guiding and defining. Like DNA, the risk is tearing asunder things that belong so tightly together and do away with one strand of the double helix risks killing the life so passionately being sought."
Before we go challenging theological expression hammered out over centuries of reflection, let us take pause to see that sometimes theological propositions do matter and do well summarize key themes in Scripture. Understanding and appreciating why such expression is there and people cared to express this way might actually help us in our own desire to walk in the ways of God, even as fresh ways of thinking might also help us grow.
There is much about the emerging church that I like and much the causes me to be concerned. I like that they question things and I think their challenges are something as a church we need to hear. That is fine for style and forms for the church. I get nervous when they do the same experiments with theology. In some ways I see some similarities between the willingness to question everything in the emerging church and the same willingness in German New Testament scholarship in the 19th century. The difference is that the Germans experimented in scholarly and academic circles. The emerging church experiments and questions in a congregational context. There are questions that I would raise in a scholarly context that I would never share with my congregation. It is high price to be paid if you teach the wrong thing to a church.
Thanks, Darrell, for a rare, even-handed, judicious and balanced assessment of the "emergents." So many writers and speakers come immediately to mind who are either clearly for or against the movement and many of them seem largely unaware how almost artificial it is to even call it a movement. Yes a few well known individuals, several who pastor high-profile, creative churches, do frequently wind up at the same conferences together or even organizing them but that's about it. And yes there is some unnecessary rejection of historic doctrines, often (though not always) through misrepresentation or misunderstanding of those doctrines, but the large body of the writings and ministries of the people usually lumped together as "emergent" exudes a passion to reach younger adults today for Christ in ways that many of the rest of us aren't doing. And for that we can only be grateful!
Darren
Thank you for a very reasoned and sympathetic assessment. I have just added your site to my "favourites" bookmark so you may be hearing from me a little bit.
I am very much involved in the Emerging Church/Fresh Expressions of Church movement in Liverpool UK,and I have to say that my I ally myself with your analysis that "This movement has more to do with raising questions about authenticity, doing church in some innovative ways, and being missional than trying to rewrite some of the faith's doctrines". Absolutely spot on. I don't want to rewrite church doctrine, but at the same time I do not accord church doctrine the same syatus as I accord the Bible itself. As a result I feel it must be subjected to just as rigorous anlaysis and debate as the restating of some doctrines by the emerging church movement are. Also is doctrinal theology always meant to be static/set in stone, or is there fluidity, room for re-evaluation, re-interpretation, repositioning even, given the seismic shifts that sometimes take place in the cultural landscape.
"Before we go challenging theological expression hammered out over centuries of reflection, let us take pause to see that sometimes theological propositions do matter and do well summarize key themes in Scripture." Again I largely agree but given that theological expression has been "hammered out", and given the numerous fallouts amongst theologians throughout church history, if a doctrine rings true is it not essential for it to be able to satnd up to the most serious challenge and the most robust of interrogations? If a doctrine does not adequately stand up to such scrutiny,
should we be a) adopting it ourselves, or b) teaching/advising/encouraging others to adopt/embrace/defend it also?
"The emerging church experiments and questions in a congregational context. There are questions that I would raise in a scholarly context that I would never share with my congregation. It is high price to be paid if you teach the wrong thing to a church."
Yes Stephen, I agree that it is, but surely problems occur when church leaders/teachers only engage with their fellow scholars/academics and don't engage with their congregations, or worse, sometimes don't understand the contexts in which their congregations live and move in once they step foot outside of the church building. Also how often do teachers/leaders seek their congregations' feedback on the stance that they are adopting on a particular issue. ie what does it feel like to sit under some of this teaching? It's not just about biblical truth, but is it helpful, is it taught in an engaging way, is it at the appropriate leve lie is it going over people's heads), is it relevant etc. These are the areas where I feel the emerging church has much to teach the more established churches.. It can be a high price to pay to teach the right thing in the wrong way, inappropriate style/context etc.
The other danger here is to assume that our congregations are not theologically astute at best, or theologically illiterate at worst. There are some very sharp, exceptionally shrewd people with enquiring minds in our congregations who often have burning issues/questions which are either never addressed, or they feel they are not allowed to ask for appearing to be "unsound" and not in accordance with the revered doctrinal stance of the church.
..and Craig..I agree with you wholeheartedly. Very well put.
Looking forward to conversing with you all in future.
Post new comment