Although I'm not in any kind of "inner circle"of the emergent movement, I feel compelled to give those who are a little shout-out, and respond to some of its criticisms from my own perspective. I think that I have a basis from which to speak because I have read many of Brian McLaren's books, as well as several speeches/articles from other leaders in the movement and talked with a few emergent leaders. If you happen to be from the emerging church movement and see that I don't know what I'm talking about, please let me know.
I've heard three main critiques about those churches which call themselves "emergent". One is that their "postmodern" viewpoint is philosophically and morally relativistic, and is not compatible with God as an Absolute Authority. A second criticism is that churches focus too much on the bells and whistles of services--videocasts, hip art displays, smooth music, cool pastors--to the detriment of the actual message, which becomes a shallow "Jesus loves you". Finally, all this postmodernism leads to some unorthodox, and in some cases heretical, theology.
First I'd like to point out that "emergent" or "the emerging church" is not a denomination. Every church is different, and every person has different ideas. "Emergent" is a term that was coined to describe a lot of similar ideas and attitudes that have been developing for a few years, and I kinda like it :). Simply put, the emerging church rejects a philosophically modernist approach to Christianity (a methodological, formulaic view which accepts facts as completely absolute and knowable) and instead views the Christian faith through a postmodern lens. Faith is often described as a "conversation" or a "journey"--something always to be relearned and renewed.
Postmodern relativism
I believe there are two types of philosophy--that which philosophy Ph.D.'s contemplate and generally remains in some kind of linguistic stratosphere, and a kind of folk philosophy, which us folks generally live by. I am not a philosopher and cannot debate the abstractest of postulates, but I can construct a worldview which I hope is both logical and coherent. Therefore when I use terms like "postmodern" and "relativism", I mean the people's general understanding of such terms.
John MacArthur is one person who comes to mind when I think of strong critics of the emerging church, and relativism seems to be his favorite subject. I have heard him speak very passionately about the dangers, evils, and inconsistencies of relativism, and have often been frustrated by what I see as a simplistic and incomplete understanding. Unfortunately I think this is a common understanding among conservative Evangelicals. The primary misconception is to assume that "relativism" means "nothing is True." That is indeed a complex philosophy to hold, and one that I think few people outside academia actually hold. At least, no one I know :).
I believe emerging church Christians definitely believe in the One True God who is absolutely and finally True. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other fact depend" [Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, 184). However, it is impossible for any of us to actually know that Fact or Truth completely, for two reasons. Firstly, the only way we could know It is for us to be equal to It, for us to be able to see to world as It sees us, and that is not the case. Secondly, and this is the more commonly referenced reason, we all have bias. All of us are shaped by our experiences, and our experiences are what we base our knowledge on.
Here is an illustration: A girl from Florida goes to visit a boy in Minnesota. When she gets there she says, "Wow, it is really cold outside!" The boy says, "No it's not, it's just right." Both of them are expressing the truth as it is relative to them. Naturally, that does not change the fact that it is 42 degrees F. 42 degrees is the objective, actual Truth. However, even knowledge of that Truth does not change the truth of each of their experiences. In order to know the Truth beyond their experience, they have to look at the thermometer, which would be analogous to the Bible. I think you would agree with me that the Bible is several times more complex than a thermometer, which is where interpretation comes in. I'll get to that in part III.
The same reasoning goes for "moral relativism." There is a universal law, which Jesus summed up very well in "Love God, love your neighbor." However, there is a lot of disagreement on what some of the rules to follow are and even more on how they should be implemented. Some things (like modesty, honor, and authority) are very different between cultures. Others (like the sanctity of life, sex, and personal property) are recognized almost across the board, but are treated differently, even within cultures and within Christianity itself.
What are the implications of a quasi-relativistic worldview such as this ? I believe it means you comes to Truth much more humbly. Knowledge does not completely go by the wayside; you still have all the cumulative experiences of your own life and the knowledge you've acquired from others. But you also know that there is always more to learn and experience. You will never stop on the journey growing ever closer to Truth. When someone is telling you something that you believe is wrong, instead of immediately rejecting his or her position, you carefully consider their perspective and really listen to what they have to say. Then you humbly embrace and lightly hold whatever conclusions to which you honestly come.
We will seek Truth all of our lives, but in the end it is not our knowledge, but our faith that saves us.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
How do you feel about the term "Red Letter Christian"?
I'm somewhat wary of it. Which is kinda funny because it seems like such a "hip" kind of phrase and I generally like hip phrases :). Although I completely understand the sentiment, I find the title "Red Letter Christian" to be narrow. Like the red letters are more important than the black ones, and that leaves out a whole huge chunk of scripture.
On the other hand, I totally understand the desire to refocus on what Jesus's words were. Growing up I think I heard a lot more of Paul's "rules for living" than Jesus's "rules for life." So, I don't think it's necessarily bad, I'm just not going to go throwing it around. Although I have joined the "Red Letter Christian" Facebook group! :)
Why do you ask and what do you think?
I also appreciate the desire to swing the pendulum back towards some of Christ's teaching that may have been under emphasized. However, I think "Red Letter" has other unavoidable connotations (i.e., some scripture is more inspired than others) that make it less than ideal and narrow, as you say.
Wow...Elizabeth, I find it hard to argue with your approach to the Emergent Church. I certainly have some grave concerns over the movement, but at the same time I'm curious to see the motivation behind the movement. Certainly from our somewhat similar background you can imagine that there is a rush to this 'emergent' philosophy in part our of 'rebellion' (and I don't mean rebellion in the same sense we grew up with) against the machine that is our super-conservative upbringing.
Surely there is a balance, and I'm only concerned that the Emergent Church is a pendulum that has the potential for swinging too far the other direction.
I think the real key is to identify from Scripture what 'truths' are absolute and hold dearly to those (for example, Christ died for our sins and our salvation is found in Christ alone). And then take what ATI and perhaps others refer to as Principles or 'Standards' or whatever other term you may have heard and THOSE are the relativistic points on which we may disagree. That's not to say that we don't have the option of disagreeing on the absolutes either, but my concern is where those truths become negotiable as well. For example, I have a friend who is one of 3 'pastors' of his church. He claims to be saved and I am not judging that, but his theology sounds a lot like he's not sure exactly who Jesus is and where he fits in this whole religion thing. I have a problem with someone like that teaching others from the pulpit. Does that make sense?
Hi Brian,
Thanks so much for visiting!
I totally agree that I might not be as fascinated with the emergent church if it were not for my background. That is my frame of reference, and I try to keep it in mind when coming to conclusions on things...as any good postmodern would :).
I also hear the point about the swinging pendulum quite a bit. The thing is, as soon as the pendulum swings "too far", the movement either betrays itself or becomes something totally different. If it becomes too focused on the language and the style and the form of it, it ironically becomes rather absolutist and snobby. A betrayal of its essence. If it gets so wishy-washy as to be uncertain of anything, then it ceases to be Christian. Every movement has its fringe, but that doesn't mean that the core of the movement shouldn't be taken seriously.
About the absolute "truths" you mentioned--Christ dying for our sins and our salvation being found in him--these are certainly core elements of Christianity. If you don't accept them as True, chances are you are not going to be accepted as an evangelical Christian believer because you just don't fit the definition of one.
I believe that those assertions are true because I have faith that they are. But I don't know that they are. I have some decent evidence to support the fact, but nothing close to "proof". I see through a mirror dimly...it won't be until I die that I will absolutely know what is TRUE and what is not. And maybe not even then; who knows? :)
As far as preaching about things you haven't come to relatively solid conclusions about--let's just say I probably wouldn't attend that church. Even though I base my beliefs on faith, I still want to go to a church where the preacher is firm in his convictions. Otherwise, there's not a lot of encouragement for me to grow in my faith journey. Neither preachers who have no convictions nor preachers who are over-the-top dogmatic about their beliefs have a lot to add to the expansion of my understanding of God. In both cases the conversation doesn't go very far.
For me, the goal is always to come to a firmer and more resilient faith. This is why I need to be humble about it, so that I always leave room for more Truth to take its place.
Does this continue to make you uncomfortable? I'd love to hear how you were first introduced to "Emergent".
You've encouraged me to hurry up with my parts II and III :)!
Eliza
The problem with your explanation of relative perspectives (gal from Florida in Minnesota) is that it misses the most crucial point: both can look at a thermometer and see what the actual temperature is. How they react to that reading does not change the reading.
God's Word is the "thermometer," and you can say it's cold and I can say it's just right, but that doesn't change the "temperature."
The problem with the emergent church is they do want to change what the "thermometer" says so that it will be "just right" for them.
Anonymous,
Yes, that is where the thermometer analogy breaks down. A thermometer is a lot easier to interpret than an ancient holy Book.
I don't know why you think the emergent church is interpreting scriptures just so it's convenient for them? I suppose the same thing could be said about Evangelical America. Or any denomination. Who has a right to judge that kind of thing? In any case, it's not about what's hard or easy; it's about learning and growing through questions and exploration. The Truth is not always distasteful.
Post a Comment