In the most recent issue of Christianity Today (February 2007), Scot McKnight has written an article on the "Five Streams of the Emerging Church". In it he sets out to undermine the urban legends and to provide a more accurate description of the emerging movement. The article is helpful in that regard and provides a good summary of the emerging church from someone who is sympathetic but not blind to its areas of weakness.
However, as I read his article, I must confess to a degree of disappointment. For all the fuss that the emergent church as engendered, I came away wondering if this is not just another tempest in a teapot. I was genuinely disappointing because I believe the church desperately needs to rethink many things and yet it seems to me that the emerging folks while raising some issues have not gone nearly far enough.
McKnight identifies 5 streams that characterize the emerging movement. The first stream is prophetic or provocative rhetoric. But how truly prophetic is the emerging church? Sure they make some provocative, over-the-top statements about the church and the world, but what group doesn't? What is really prophetic about their critique of the church and other Christians? And what is prophetic about saying that orthodoxy must be joined to orthopraxy? Hasn't each generation of Christians been challenged along these lines? Although talking about orthopraxy it a good place to start it must never be confused with actually doing what is right!
The second stream is postmodernism. In McKnight's words the emerging church has dared to taste the fruit from the forbidden tree of postmoderism and they have found that it tasted good, even though there are certain things they do not agree with. While extreme and downright silly things have been said about postmodernism by some Christians, there are many voices within the church calling on us to recognize the benefits of postmodernism's trashing of the arrogance of modernism. In fact, Christians who have studied and meditated on Romans 1-3 should know that postmodernism as not gone nearly far enough in its assessment of the limits of human knowing. The situation is far more grave than they realize.
The third stream is praxis, or how the faith is lived out. This is further subdivided into worship, orthopraxy and the need to be missional. Sometimes I wonder if Christians will ever be happy with the worship experience this side of glory for the simple reason that the best is yet to come! Surely there is a sense in which all of our worship leaves us longing for more; for something more profound and satisfying. As a result people are constantly trying to tweak "worship" in all sorts of ways that matter little in the long run. The same can be said about orthopraxy. We all know that the followers of Christ are to be known by what they do not merely by what they say, and that public scandals prove that those who believe all the right things may fail to do what they should. But the same can be said about those who emphasize right living. Until we are perfected in holiness we will make mistakes and fail to live up to our own knowledge and commitments. Concern about missions is wonderful as long as the theology of emerging church does not undermine the very reason for missions in the first place. Emerging Christians have yet to take their place for any length of time alongside those who have been serving in missions at home and abroad for years; I wish them well.
The fourth stream is post-evangelical. My first reaction is: "Oh, no! Not another evangelical buzz word! Good grief, haven't we had enough labeling and name-calling!" I guess not! But how much of this defining and re-defining is just another generation trying to distinguish themselves from their parents in that age old quest for recognition. For the emerging church to be "post-evangelical" means that they are "post-systematic theology"; but this is really a misnomer. No one is post-systematic theology if they believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, or the triune nature of God, or the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. If by post-systematic theology they mean that they do not like airtight-theological systems or statements of faith, then they need to relax because no system or doctrinal statement is airtight because we continue to see through a glass darkly even though we have the canonical scriptures. Absolute claims about uncertainty are still absolute. And a non-systematic theology can be as systematic as any other. For all the things we do know about God, man, sin, Christ, etc... there are still many unanswered questions as any good systematic theology will reveal.
The fifth stream is political. According to McKnight, in America most emerging Christians seem to identify with the general overall philosophy of the Democrats versus the Republicans. Either way, Christians need to be very careful when it comes to aligning themselves with political parties. The gospel of Jesus Christ has something to say to Democrats and Republicans south of the border; as well as to Conservatives, Liberals and NDP'ers here in Canada. But again, is this really ground breaking stuff? In every generation the church needs to be called back to what is central to its faith and mission. If the discussion surrounding the emerging church does that, then its appearance on the scene will be beneficial. But if this is just another case of more slogans and words accompanied by the smugness that so often characterizes those who imagine themselves to be on the leading edge, then, unfortunately, it will be nothing more than another blip on the screen of Christian history.
No comments:
Post a Comment