I am doing some reading on the Emergent church (EC). There are some aspects of this movement I can appreciate and would even acknowledge. Their critique of the "modern" church's use of Foundationalism's categories (e.g. false dualities sprung to life from the thinking of Descartes) is well taken. What I am having difficulties grasping is why a new "movement" is necessary. If you take a look at Ecclesia's website (an EC in Houston), there are some attractive things (to me, at least): liturgy, the church calendar, prayers, etc. But why not go Anglican or Roman Catholic? These valuable practices come from these traditions. I have a hunch the issue boils down to cultural relevancy, which always must be handled carefully. I am not necessarily against being relevant, or contextualization, but where do the older saints fit into this new movement? It just seems these churches are predominately younger people who are college-educated and have a decent amount of discretionary money. Don't get me wrong; I am young, college-educated, and well, I actually don't have a fair amount of extra funds laying around. But, compared to much of the world, I do, and I do not see how this movement's concern with being "missional" (evangelistic or evangelical must be old and outmoded terms) differs too much from what many "traditionally"-minded folks are doing--except the need to be relevant. I am open to correction.Lastly, It could be argued that Luther's reform movement--beginning as it did with Luther employing the latest Renaissance learning--breathed into the emerging Protestant body the breath of the age in which he lived. Assuming that to be true, I wonder what the Emergent movement is attempting to breathe into us? I don't mean this as an alarm to rouse us to arms against a conspiracy. I am only concerned with Emergent's quick (hasty?) adherence to postmodernism--the spirit of the age.
Here's a link to an old article that gives Brian McLaren's position on what it means to do Emergent evangelism and a reply by Duane Litfin. Litfin makes a good point about Emergent's myopia: "We've been here before." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/14.42.html
1 comment:
We'll see how long the blogging lasts. The wife's (she prefers to go by her pseudonym in the blogworld) been doing it faithfully for a year now. A few days ago, I suddenly decided it would be fun to blog and didn't necessarily need to be a platform for narcissistic ramblings. But I wonder if the medium influences the message more than I know? Anyway, CS Lewis says that if there's anything harmless you enjoy, you shouldn't hesitate to do it. Doing so brings about a kind of self-forgetfulness that is closer to heaven's aims than hell's.
I've admittedly only read articles and interviews with McLaren, but I think you can get a pretty good sense of where he is coming from with them. But I think you are right. From what I've read so far, it's their tone and spirit that, to me, tends toward a greasy familiar sympathy that is more akin to the spirit of the age than with true Christian sympathy and love that is meant to balance grace and truth. It's also their "chronological snobbery"--announcing that this is a new time calling for new methods. It seems the concern for things "outdated" is a bit exaggerated too. This would be, ironically, nothing new.
Post a Comment