Emergent Church 101 - (As I Understand It)

I feel like I'm back in school writing a research paper on something that is way over my head! And just as in the olden days, I hope I can comprehend enough of it to make it look like I know what I'm writing about! I plan on avoiding deep descriptions on theological terms - if you need more info, your best option is to do some research yourself! I wouldn't depend on my brain to bring forth a thorough explanation on big 50 cent words and theology.

It's important to keep in mind the wide range of viewpoints held within the christian church. In my mind, at one end of the spectrum is a legalistic viewpoint, at the opposite end is a postmodern ideology (go to Millersville Bible Church's website under featured articles on the right hand side for a good explanation of the postmodern church). And there's a wide mix in between. It's the same within the emerging circle, a diverse range of viewpoints and beliefs. It would be a big mistake to lump all emergents into one category, to say that one thing goes for all. But unfortunately, many have made that mistake, and in my opinion, are missing out on some great teaching - teaching which is often not new! A lot has been taken from the early church.

This is a movement, or "conversation", that has really gained popularity towards the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. Many in this circle have conservative evangelical backgrounds but have been turned off by what they saw & experienced. They feel that the way the church studied the bible was very much a formulaic way, reducing the bible to more of a self help book instead of a narrative, historical, poetical, book that is all about God's love and redemption. They felt that the church didn't do enough to reach out to the community around them. Worship and prayer was too limited. And they have a big problem with power positions. "Emerging Christians began to challenge the modern church on issues such as: institutional structures, systematic theology, propositional teaching methods, a perceived preoccupation with buildings, an attractional understanding of mission, professional clergy, and a perceived preoccupation with the political process and unhelpful jargon ("Christian-ese") - Wikipedia.

So what did the emergent leaders do about this? They formed a movement that has more of a holistic approach. Missions is a huge element. Wikipedia quoted John Franke saying, "The Church of Jesus Christ is not the goal of the Gospel, just the instrument of the extension of God's mission. The Church has been slow to recognize that missions isn't a program the Church administers, it is the very core of the Church's reason for being." Readers,in your church experiences growing up, how would your church have welcomed a couple who just walked into the church for the 1st time, holding hands, and lets add some spice to this, let's say they were gay? Would this couple have been shunned out in a most "godly" way? Or would they have been welcomed warmly like any new couple? Missions in this movement is getting down into the trenches, reaching the marginalize, just like Jesus did. Social activism and reaching out to their community is key. Worship is very diverse too including arts, drama, music, spiritual direction practices...so on and so forth. Sometimes the emergent church is referred to the "Ancient-Future church" because it incorporates historic church practices including lectio divina, prayer beads, liturgy, labyrinth, and icons.

And as far as their view of the bible itself - emergents are varied widely on thought and theology. It has been criticized that those in the movement have a watered down view of the bible. Many believe that Christ didn't die on the cross to take our sin upon himself, (a penal substitutionary atonement of Christ), but only that his dying demonstrated how far his love for us reaches. One guy named Dale made this comment on the thinkerup blog, "It is a clear message of a loving God who allows Himself to be victimized by sinners, in order to demonstrate to them that he is willing to forgive them of their worst possible atrocities against him." Their problem with the atonement idea is that it wrongfully shows a vengeful, hateful God, instead of a loving good God. Some view the bible needs to be reinterpreted for today's culture. "All of this debate is built on the assumption that language is reliable. No one is throwing out the cross just reading it differently - as a model for sacrificial love. The fact of the matter is, language is problematic. Meaning is obscured by vocal inflection, hyperbole, inside jokes, and the distance of the other cultural particulars. And someone will certainly suggest that this is why we have hermeneutics. However, keep in mind that this is still a product of the modern mind, attempting to extract meaning from texts written at a particular time, for a particular culture, and deals with the abstraction of cosmology" - Shawn Young.

Mark Driscoll summed it up in a clear way, "...I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."

My shoulder is now telling me it's time to stop writing. And here's a good place to do so. But readers - I'm not finished yet! When I continue this I want write on my thoughts about this emerging movement, what I am incorporating into my life, what my church is incorporating in it's practices and teachings, and a concern I have for those in this movement as well as for my church.