Why We're Not Emergent - A Review, continued

Why We’re Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be) – second and final post in a review by an old man who shouldn’t be Emergent.

In a previous post, I highlighted areas where I agreed with DeYoung and Kluck in their critique of the Emergent Movement: The movement struggles with epistemology. It evinces the us/them dichotomy characteristic of young movements (a dichotomy that borders on arrogance even in its protestations of humility). Its commitment to inclusivity and diversity appears more theoretical than experiential. It is ahistorical, seemingly unaware of the rich, untidy tapestry Christian thinking and experience across the centuries. (From here on I'll refer to DeYoung as the author, since he is the principal author.)

Taking these points in reverse order, I’ll describe why an “Old Man Who Shouldn’t Be” might consider himself a “fellow traveler” of the Emergent movement. (For those too young to remember this political/social term, check Wikipedia.)

Social/ethnic homogeneity

In my first post on the Emergent movement, I described its theology as reminiscent of “classic apophatic theology but without the stability and wisdom offered by deep connections with the history and traditions of the Christian Church.” And I wrote it was “a youthful, generational fad . . . populated almost exclusively by young, White people.” In response, Spence of the TheOOZE.com, which sponsored Soularize, pointed out the conference included speakers with roots in historical traditions–e.g. Roman Catholic and Methodist clergy–and speakers from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds. In addition, his online community includes people from over 100 countries.
I would argue the diversity of speakers at the conference is primarily an expression of the theoretical commitment of the movement to diversity, because the audience–those who paid to listen–was rather homogenous. I suspect the “people from over 100 countries” who form the online community are mostly young, educated White people from “Western” countries. The non-Western members are mostly likely “Westernized” or at the very least, “urbanized” young people.
However, while this observed homogeneity contrasts with the movement’s words about diversity, it is, in fact, inevitable. Ideas always find their first life in socially homogenous groups. Galileans were disproportionately represented among Jesus’ disciples. Post-Pentecost, the church first spread in a narrow demography–Jewish people and friends of Jewish people. The early Adventist Church was largely White young adults from the Northeast. Both the Christian Church as a whole and the Adventist denomination have become global, international, pan-ethnic realities. But they didn’t start there. Why would we expect the Emergent movement to be any different?

Us/Them

As an old liberal, steeped in Christian history, I smile indulgently when I hear young zealots of any variety declaiming the radical newness, effectiveness, and authenticity of their movement. They are going to do church like it has never been done before–and not just different–better. I know what they are doing is not truly different from what has ever been done before. And it is not better–by any objective, rational yardstick.
But without the conviction that they are onto something so valuable and powerful that it is better than everything else, how would they have the fire and zeal needed to take it to the world? So I smile indulgently, then wipe the smirk off my face and cheer them on. Give money. Bless them. And remember my own fiery certainty of three decades ago. Of course, the Emergent Movement is not perfect. Of course, there are elements of Emergent culture that will prove unhealthy and unsustainable over time. But right now it is touching lives and providing hope for many people unmoved and unserved by the rest of us.

Epistemology

How do we know? What is the truth? The simple answer of classic Christianity is the Bible. God spoke the Bible. We hear God by giving attention to what he has said in its pages. This is a simple, devout, classic epistemology. I have known wonderful saints for whom this is enough. They were happy, generous, compassionate and moral. If you question them about what they know and how they know, they answer, “God said it in the Bible.”
It seems to me this is the model DeYoung holds up. Within Adventist circles, Samuel Pippim and Fernando Canale are leading champions of this approach to truth.
The problem is, this “high view” of Scripture actually settles very few of the major theological conflicts that divide Christians (never mind the divisions between Christianity and non-Christian religions).
Did God choose some people for damnation and some for salvation before creation? DeYoung, citing the Bible would answer emphatically, yes. Adventists and other Armenians answer equally emphatically, no! Citing, of course, the same authoritative Bible. When did life first appear on earth? Classic Adventist doctrine, citing Genesis, answers 6000 years ago. Other Adventists–Sabbath-keeping, praying, devout Adventists as well as many non-Adventist Christians–argue the Bible does not answer the question.
What happens when people die? According to the Bible, they depart and go to be with the Lord. According to the Bible, they sleep. And sincere Christians who take the Bible as their infallible authority dispute with one another, sometimes vehemently over just how to interpret these different pictures of death.
What happens to the wicked after death? According to the Bible, their worm never dies, and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever. According to the Bible they are burned like wheat straw in a furnace.
The Emergent writers do conservative Protestantism a favor by challenging from inside the church our certainty that if we will all agree to acknowledge the Bible as our ultimate authority in theology that theological wars will cease. So instead of calling us to renewed vigor in prosecuting the classic wars over the nature of the atonement and divine will and precise definitions of soteriology, they call us to join Jesus in his kingdom work. I think they are on to something.

In his introduction, DeYoung gives a page long list to describe the amorphous movement called Emergent. At least half of the identifiers he lists do not apply to me at all. But I found myself saying Amen! to many elements in his list, especially the political and social implications of following Jesus. I do not believe it is more important to be right in one’s soteriological theories than to be faithful in following the Savior, here and now.

If I were engaged in the Emergent conversation, I would ask how can we know when a person’s “openness to the leading of the Spirit” has taken them away from Truth. At what point do we emphatically separate ourselves from the claims of someone like a Jim Jones or David Koresh. On what basis do we publicly declare “That person is wrong, evil, dangerous”? A church that specializes in defining boundaries cannot remain healthy over the long haul. Neither can a church remain healthy that never draws boundaries.

Right now, the Emerging Church is experimenting. It is engaged in the exhilarating exploration of a new and youthful expression of the community of Jesus. It is appropriate that it should be out there, defying tradition, trying new forms of worship and spiritual formation. But within a few years Emergent congregations will face crises that will compel them to draw lines, to define themselves—their beliefs and practices. Emergent congregations will eventually become the establishment which their own children and grandchildren will feel called to reform. And some of that reformation will be a reversion toward the mean. The children of Emergents will discover that some of the “old-fashioned” ways of doing church, actually work pretty well. They may even find that doctrinal definitions, while perhaps not structured according to the pattern of the ancient creeds, are still an important part of a church’s identity and mission.

If you think the Emergent movement is the final solution to the challenge of being authentically Christian, then you should give serious attention to DeYoung’s criticism. As with all human movements, Emergent is flawed. I think DeYoung has offered a thoughtful, careful critique of the movement. If you are headed down the Emergent path, you would be well-advised to ask some of the same questions DeYoung raises. On the other hand, if you are a conservative Adventist looking for support in your opposition to all things new, be careful. While the Emerging Church is DeYoung’s target in this book, it is obvious that were he to give any attention to Adventists he would have at least as many complaints against us. You can’t hold him up as an authority when attacking the Emergents then dismiss him when he holds his same “Bible yardstick” up to us.

Ironically, the primary value of Why We’re not Emergent is precisely its participation in the Emergent conversation. DeYoung’s positive “truth claims” are mostly unhelpful, but he raises good questions. If we respectfully engage the Emergent movement, hearing its own questions and challenging it with the kinds of questions DeYoung asks, we should come to a clearer understanding of our mission as the Church of the Living God.