Adam McLane

the problem in the emergent movement

Tonyjones Let me state out front in case anyone is reading this: I am critiquing something I am seeing… not speaking against the emergent movement.

Over the past few weeks and months there has been a bunch of downright attacks directed at people in the emergent movement about such issues as "are you teaching universalism" and "are you validating practices of Eastern Mysticism."

Here is my frustration… very few answers ever come out of these guys! Someone will pop up and ask them a question in a public forum, or at a conference, they get all POed and think they are too good to answer any questions. [Read Tony’s blog entry]

Here’s what I don’t get…

  1. This is a movement based on critical thinking of the evangelical community… why are they Dankimball above the same scrutiny they have laid upon the church?
  2. The questions being asked are foundational to biblical Christianity. These aren’t questions about methodology, they are about core theology… Is Jesus the only way to heaven? I think that is a question that is relevant to the conversation.
  3. By not answering these questions, they are silently denying that they believe in biblical Christianity… which clearly isn’t true if you talk to them. I have read these guys, followed their stories, heard them speak, and met several of them… these guys are the real deal… I don’t get why they won’t simply say that they don’t believe in Universalism… it’s silly.
  4. By claiming that no person represents "the emergent conversation" there is a fundamental denial of truth. There are voices out there that speak for emergent. Tony Jones recently said something along the lines of, "When you have a dinner conversation, you don’t elect a spokesperson." Get over it Tony, you speak for emergent. And so do Doug Pagitt, Dan Kimball, and your stuff is published by Mark Ostreicher.

Leonardsweet All that to say, I just don’t get it. Why not deal with conflict and misunderstanding head up? Most of what these people are being accused of is silly. Emergent isn’t universalist or "liberalism remarketed" or whatever else hate driven fundamentalist are claiming out there. Those people are seeking to destroy emergent… mostly out of envy. They use pseudo-journalism and "clinton-like" tactics to twist words and make people say things they didn’t. [Too many to list!] What they are about is recognizing a major shift in American culture and helping the regular evangelical church address this need.

What I don’t get is that more needs to be said to critics than just "no one person speaks for us." Deal with conflict in a biblically mandated way. Address people head up first!

Posted

in

by

Adam McLane

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “the problem in the emergent movement”

  1. Jonathan Avatar
    Jonathan

    I agree that getting answers to straight-up questions is frustrating. I have also wondered aloud about the hypocrisy of saying it’s a “conversation” when very clearly there are spokespeople who are pushing a certain view-point/movement theologically. I especially echo your comments about emergent being above the very thing they espouse: critique. Thanks for a well-thought post!

    Reply
  2. Andrea Avatar
    Andrea

    I can’t quite get a grasp on what “Emergent” is. Is it a theory? Is it a organization? Is it a denomination of christianity (i.e. baptist, lutheran, etc.)? Is it simply a group of believers who have a lot in common personality-wise and gave themselves a name?

    I’d appreciate clarification on this point.

    Reply
  3. adam Avatar
    adam

    Well, it is a lot of those things… but it isn’t a formal organization or a denomination.

    Think of it as a movement inside a lot of evangelical churches and other Christian traditions that is seeking “authentic expressions of faith” that go beyond what was practiced in the 20th century.

    To some, this means walking away from the “seeker model” of church where the church service and ministry is designed to be comfortable for non-Chrisitans to come. Their assumption (one which I share) is that people aren’t going to “accidentally” come to a church on a Sunday morning, so you don’t have to dumb everything down for them. They would say that if are going to come to church… you should let them experience church in it’s fullness… give them the “experience of church.”

    But, as it has expressed itself through PB and I at our church… this has meant the introduction of really old spiritual disciplines. 20th Century evangelicalism really only taught 2 spiritual disciplines, prayer and Bible study. As we’ve done in our church… there is a lot of meaning and depth in some of the other spiritual disciplines like fasting, simplicity, lectio divina, etc.

    So… hope that gives you a taste. Go to some of those website and cruise around…

    Reply
  4. Carla Rolfe Avatar
    Carla Rolfe

    Hi, Carla here, from ENo.

    For the record, I’m not a ‘hate driven fundamentalist’ as you wrote in your entry here.

    Just thought I’d clear that up.
    🙂

    SDG,
    Carla

    Reply
  5. adam Avatar
    adam

    Carla, thanks for your comment. I notice that you didn’t deny everything I said, just that you aren’t “hate driven fundamentalist” 🙂

    Reply
  6. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    Just a couple of quick thoughts from the American trying to serve God in an Irish context. I am not one to call myself ’emergent’ by any means but I like the thought of being part of a conversation that is thoughtfully considering the way we do church and the way we approach the world in changing times. I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions being drawn by people that consider themselves emergent but I’ve really enjoyed the questions that are being asked and how they’ve stretched my thinking. For us, living in a context where the terms Protestant and Catholic are so loaded down with politics and history, we are considering how to have a church that brings people directly to Christ without all the distractions and divisions.

    My second thought on this is in regards to Tony Jones not answering questions directly and not seeing himself as a spokesperson for the emerging conversation. I thought I read recently on the Emergent-US blog that they are trying to raise enough funds to pay Tony a full time salary to work for the emerging church. In that case I think Tony needs to realize that this inherently makes him even more of a central figure in this dialogue and people are going to want to know what he thinks. I read his analogy about going to a dinner party and not having a spokesperson for the group. The problem that I saw with this, in keeping with the analogy, is that you still want to know where you are going when you go to a dinner party and who the host is. Here in Ireland, I’m always interested to know if I’m going to the home of an American living here, an Irish person from Dublin, and Irish person from the country, someone from the North, a Brit working here…they all make a significant difference in perspective. I know its a difficult thing to nail down a whole movement on a viewpoint (in this case the issue of absolute truth), but I think its very valid to want to know what a particular leader in that movement thinks.

    Reply
  7. adam Avatar
    adam

    Thanks for your thoughts Jon. I want to make sure I’m not one of the voices out to get “emergent.” Nope, not me. What I do want to see is one of two things.

    – Answer these foundational questions. In essense… a lack of belief in absolute truth starts a chain reaction… is the Bible absolutely true? Is Jesus the absolute only way? On and on.
    – Declare whether they are a breakaway from evangelicalism or a reform movement. I still see them as a reform movement. In fact, I think that their message has been received and it may be time to put themselves back into the fold.

    Reply
  8. Uncle Pavian Avatar
    Uncle Pavian

    Hmm. Either the Bible is true or it isn’t. If the Bible has parts that are not true, then the Bible as a whole is not true, right? So, if the Bible contains material that isn’t true, how is it different from some other text that is not true but contains material that is true?

    Well, it isn’t. If the Bible is not different from, say, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, or the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Koran, in that parts of it are true and parts of it are false, then it really isn’t what it says it is, viz., the revealed Word of God, and you can pick out the parts of it that you want to take seriously.

    As to whether Jesus is the only way to heaven, He said He was, and if the Bible is true, that statement has to be true, otherwise the Bible is not true. You either believe it or you don’t, and you take whatever consequences flow from that decision.

    Happy motoring…

    P.S. There are really angry fundamentalists out there, but from what I’ve seen, Carla isn’t one of them. UP

    Reply
  9. adam Avatar
    adam

    Just an update. If you go to Tony’s blog he did offer some explaination. Please take the time to read it at:
    http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2005/11/national-youth-workers-convention-part.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply