For the last eight years, I have been in a radical transformation in my faith, my worldview, and my interpretations of things of which I'd always thought I was certain. My spiritual mentor at the time told me that I was solidly postmodern. So, this transformation has been to learn (or "figure out") what that means.
It was around that time (2000/2001) that I was introduced to something "new", called Emergent. I found myself reading and absorbing theology in ways that made sense to me. Started reading McLaren, Kimball, Pagitt, as well as rereading classic "church fathers", monastics, and seeing things in a new light. Understand, please, that I do NOT agree with everything I read, so, if you disagree with anyone mentioned in this article, don't paint me with a guilty by association brush, okay. But please, respect the conversation, that's all I ask.
So, for the last eight years my spiritual life has been exciting and vibrant again!!! I have made new friends who challenge me all the time to think in new ways. But, I have also run into the dark side of things Emergent. Many who I respect greatly have been labeled as heretics. Most of these so called heretics are not heretics, but questioners of the status quo..not to disprove, but to deconstruct and understand. That's one of the things that excites me so much. That's my kind of intellectual exercise.
One of the voices in the Emergent conversation is Tony Jones. Regular readers of my blog will recognize the name. Others may not know of Tony. Tony is the national coordinator of Emergent Village, a very loose knit organization coordinating events and fundraising around emergent issues. Please note, Emergent is not a denomination or an organized committee making decisions on what is "Orthodox" or even, necessarily, pointing out flaws in other groups. The closest description is a conversation among friends -- a generative friendship, as it were.
Tony's latest book -- The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier -- is an introduction to the history of the emergent movement, a dissection of the characteristics of those of us who consider ourselves to be "emergent" and, without using defensive language, a logical, and even Biblical, explanation of some of the beliefs that are core to emergents. These are not "Articles of Faith" or a "doctrinal statement" that must be signed in order to join. These beliefs and understandings are commonalities that are displaying after 10 years of this Emergent conversation. It struck a chord with me, and I now recommend it to anyone who questions what Emergent is about.
Tony begins with a description of the issues facing churches on the "left" (i.e. Mainline protestantism) and on the "right". (i.e. Evangelical protestantism) Of course, this separation is classically referred to as Liberal and Conservative. "Both are beholden to a scheme that philosophers call foundationalism." (Defined as the "theory that at the bottom of all human knowledge is a set of self-inferential or internally justified beliefs".) Unfortunately, it is becoming clear, through an infinite regression of questions to find the self-evident foundation, that no such "foundation" exists. Note: this isn't about God...everyone on both sides agree that God is an unshakeable foundation. However, when people often start discussing "iron-clad" beliefs, the questions eventually drop to an answer of "Just because it's true, okay?"
Just because. Part of me wants to say, "That's Faith." Another wants to ask, "Why?" That makes me emergent.
Tony also throws out this challenge. "The church that doesn't challenge its members to face the core ethical issues that confront them everyday at work is the church that has abdicated its responsibility. Many evangelical churches have emphasized the vertical, just-me-and-Jesus relationship to the exclusion of the horizontal relationships with other human beings and with all of creation." He goes on to say that this "individualism" precludes many evangelical churches from affecting the very changes that rally its members." He also makes reference to this attitude being responsible for their inability to diagnose and solve systemic social issues.
Brian Mclaren makes similar claims in "Everything Must Change" and I wholeheartedly agree. This lack of a societal heart change, this missional view, is one core difference between "modern" and "postmodern/emergent".
So, who are emergent Christians. Tony identifies 3 characteristics:
- People who feel great disappointment with modern American Christianity
- A high desire for "inclusion"...openness, non-judgmental..but not necessarily relativistic.
- A hope-filled orientation. (page 72)
Throughout the book, Jones has "dispatches", effectively sidebars with key points. In reference to the emergent view of culture, dispatch 6 says "Emergents see God's activity in all aspects of culture and reject the sacred-secular divide. I struggle with this. I agree, but do not completely reject a sacred-secular divide. I do reject that it is as stringent as the moern church has made it, but I do not, out of hand, reject it.
"Everything we do in the emergent church is surrounded by an envelope of friendship that is based on lives of reconciliation.", Tony writes. He continues with another charge, “In fact, I’m not even sure it’s even possible to be an orthodox Christian if you’re not living a life of reconciliation.” I’m still, personally, trying to get my head wrapped around that one. What does a life of reconciliation look like? Do I live it? Guess what….more blog fodder. Anyway, it is these views of reconciliation and openness that allows most emergents to have conversations around spiritual issues (i.e. atonement, baptism, orthodoxy) and secular issues (i.e. abortion, AIDS, politics) and reconcile them back to the truth of the message of Jesus. It paints a framing story for the conversation.
End Part 1.
Questions for reflection:
· What strikes you as interesting in what I’ve written so far?
· What areas do you want me to attempt to expound upon?
· How do you respond to the claims Tony makes about “lives of reconciliation” and “rejecting the sacred-secular divide”?
Looking forward to the conversation!!!! I'll post part two soon.
1 comment:
I have a friend who grew up in a strictly orthodox Buddhist household. Both her parents are elders in the Buddhist temple. She and her 3 brothers have all become Christian, but her parents see no point. They participate in various inter-faith prayer groups, and see it as everyone praying to the same diety. The idea of Yahweh being the true God is not being demonstrated to them through these reconciliation groups. I'm not sure what to think of this. I think that inter-faith dialogue is important, but perhaps it is causing some to reject Christ as just another representation of the same diety.
Post a Comment