Remembering Great Theologians

 

 

Some criteria for judging theologians

who will be remembered 50 years from now

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/some-criteria-for-judging-theologians-who-will-be-remembered-50-years-from-now/

by Roger Olson

posted on March 18, 2012

Thanks to all of you who have offered answers to my question about Christian (trinitarian) theologians who probably will be included in a book on late 20th century and early 21st century theologians 50 years from now.

I agree with those who have said it’s hard to predict because we live in a time when there are no theological “giants” comparable to Barth or Tillich. That’s what make this so difficult.

Recently I wrote about 19th century Christian (trinitarian) theologians. (This is not yet published.) What criteria did I use? Well, I didn’t exactly have a formal list of criteria, but I had some informal ones that are more noticeable looking back on the project than they were during the selection process. I’m not saying these are the right criteria, but I think they are the ones (more or less) that will be used 50-100 years from now (in academic and semi-academic books on what we call our contemporary theologians).

1) Broad, lasting influence on other theologians and popularizers;

2) Prolific writing widely read (usually in more than one language);

3) Originality and creativity (not just in inventing new ideas but in bridging divides);

4) Engagement with culture (not necessarily accommodation to it);

Usually such theologians were the subjects of many books about their theological contributions. Usually they were read and discussed by theologians and theologically-minded pastors and lay people outside their own denominations or traditions. Usually they received a lot of reaction both positive and negative.

So, about whom did I write? (I began by writing about some philosophers who stimulated theological creativity and reaction such as Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Reid, and Hegel. Kierkegaard could be considered both a philosopher and theologian.) Here are the 19th century theologians I selected: Schleiermacher, Bushnell, Hodge, Ritschl, Dorner, Troeltsch, Blondel and Tyrrell, Harnack and Rauschenbusch.

These 19th century (up to WW1) theologians stand out over a century later as THE giants of that era. Were there others? Yes, but they have been largely eclipsed by these. I could have written about Warfield, but I think I covered his contribution by writing about Hodge on whose shoulders he stood. I could have written about several American liberal theologians, but Bushnell is remembered (e.g., by Gary Dorrien) as THE 19th century American liberal theologian par excellence. (I actually treat him as a mediating theologian.) There is no “stand out” Catholic theologian in the 19th century except Newman and Blondel and I decided to write about the Catholic modernists because of their originality and influence on 20th century Catholic theology (for better or worse).

A perplexing question is this: Who would have been identified by a theological cartographer as the “mountain peaks” of 19th century theology THEN–say, around mid-19th century? I suspect there wouldn’t have been any consensus other than Schleiermacher and maybe Bushnell (in America). What caused these other theologians (e.g., Dorner) to be remembered? In his case, I suspect it is his influence on Barth and the fact that Claude Welch liked him.

When I write about today’s living theologians (or recently deceased) and have to narrow it down to, say four or five, who will they be? It’s a risk because even 25 years later some of them may be forgotten. There are no obvious theological giants stalking the land. (N. T. Wright comes about as close as one can get due to his prolific writing and broad influence but he’s not a systematic/constructive theologian per se; he’s a biblical scholar.)

The name I hear everywhere from almost everybody (whether conservative or liberal or postmodern or nothing) is Hauerwas. Why? Well, I think Time magazine naming him the “best” theologian has something to do with it. Also, he’s an iconoclast; we like iconoclasts. Also, he’s difficult to categorize and we no longer like neat categories. And, he’s prolific, broadly influential and arguably original and creative (at least in the sense of combining Barth and Yoder which is not easy!). Also, he spawned so many doctoral students!

But let’s put Hauerwas up against someone like him (in many ways) 50 years ago. Ever hear of Langdon Gilkey? Fifty years ago he was all the rage. Not only was he prolific, supervised more dissertations in theology than anyone else, and broadly influential, he was a hippy. (He looked kind of like Willy Nelson wore beads and a pony tail, etc.–even into old age.) Hands down, for about twenty years or so, he was considered America’s “best” theologian (even if Time magazine didn’t say so). Yet, now, 50 years after his peak, who even remembers him? Will it be like that for Hauerwas? Will he be remembered and talked about 50 years from now? WILL ANYONE?

Those are my thoughts and questions. Thanks for you suggestions–especially those of you who offered reasons. If you have any thoughts about what I’ve written here please feel free to comment.



Vid Link to Stanley Hauerwas:
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/select-videos-by-stanley-hauerwas.html



Responses

be remembered 50 years from now

1. Greg D says:

   March 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm

   I like Hauerwas (Resident Aliens) but it seems his works resonate with only a certain segment of the Christian faith, namely with those of the Anabaptist tradition. I don’t know why, but Hauerwas seems to be synonymous with John Howard Yoder who also is of the Anabaptist tradition. But, it is my hope that these works will indeed resonate with Christians 50 years from now, where I’m certain his theology will be timely just as it is today. Another theologian that comes to mind is Charles Ryrie. I read Basic Theology in seminary and found it to be very insightful, void of biased theologies and politics unlike what is found in Wayne Grduem’s Systematic Theology. And, if I’m not mistaken Ryrie is Arminian although heavily dispensational.
2. • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm

     Is Ryrie read by anyone but conservative evangelicals? Not to my knowledge.
3. Bev Mitchell says:

   March 18, 2012 at 4:02 pm

   Roger, The results of your survey are fascinating, thanks for doing this. Also, thanks, I think, for adding to my pile of books to read. I am surprised that few readers, if any besides myself, seemed to highlight the great importance of scientific discoveries and the urgent need for a “star” theologian to make the connection between our two big sources of information about God – namely, inspired writers of Scripture and inspired studies of creation. The last 100 years have produced unprecedented deep and wide advances in our understanding of the created universe. This new knowledge is so fundamental it will clearly have a revolutionary impact on orthodox theology, as well as profoundly improving the way we read Scripture. A masterful “bridging of divides” between these two sources of information is the single greatest need in post-modern theology. Yet, even most first class theologians don’t seem to have captured the sense of urgency. Torrance constructed a real foundation, but much new evidence has emerged since he stopped writing. People like Polkinghorne are doing a good job on the front lines, but the definitive/defining theology has yet to emerge. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this observation.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm

     Yes, I think we need that. Polkinghorne is the best, IMHO. Clayton is doing good work but very speculative and tainted by idealism (IMHO). Peacocke was doing good work in this area until he adopted process theology.
     • C.J.W says:

       March 19, 2012 at 11:14 pm

       But isn’t Clayton Process theology as well? If not, it seems he’s close
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm

         My understanding is that he is not. But he does call his view of the God-world relation panentheism. However, it is a strange kind of panentheism, a qualified Christian panentheism (to use Niels Henrik Gregersen’s label in “Three Varieties of Panentheism” in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being edited by Clayton and Peacocke. It’s an excellent book, by the way, but in my opinion it stretches the term “panentheism” to the breaking point. I prefer to keep “panentheism” tied to views that make God involuntarily dependent on the world (e.g., Hegel and Whitehead).
4. Joshua says:

   March 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm

   This was humbling to say the least. To think on the many “giants” who walked, talked, thought and taught long before us, and then to realize that their names are long forgotten, well – that’s humbling. I would like to say that, whether I’m happy about it or not, John Piper’s “Desiring God,” will probably be one of the few books still read fifty years from now (perhaps not, but it’s already been around thirty years, and it’s still immensely popular). In that sense, I think it fair to say that John Piper will be remembered as a highly influential theologian. Disagree? I agree with you about N.T. Wright. He will almost definitely be remembered as one of the most influential Biblical scholars in the early 21st century.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm

     I think Desiring God will be remembered and read as a spiritual classic rather than as a classic of systematic, constructive theology. I didn’t find anything there that can’t be found in, say Jonathan Edwards.
5. Paul Ede says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm

   Moltmann? Pannenberg? Volf?
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:43 pm

     Without out doubt Moltmann and Pannenberg. No risk there. Volf? Maybe.
6. CGC says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:17 pm

   Hi Roger, Not only are there no more theologians like Karl Barth from the 20th century but there are no more biblical scholars who were conversant in so many languages like Bruce M. Metzger. I would also suggest that the Roman Catholic Church produces people with Saint like qualities like Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, and Henri Nouwen. Where is the robust spiritual tradition within Evangelicalism to do something similar?
   I don’t know how long Hauerwas or Wright will be influential after they are gone? (they produce so much more than most for the moment and therefore have great influence on many people studying Christian theology today).
   I will say there would be an irony for Hauerwas to be the postmodern Christian par excellence since he is actually a critic of postmodernism and not an ally. Hauerwas as an iconoclast? I suspect Hauerwas would like to be best remembered as a “Christian contrarian” :–)
7. John Metz says:

   March 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm

   Roger, Why not include some of the Plymouth Brethren teachers in your list of influential theologians of the 19th century? Darby and Mackintosh immediately come to mind. They appear to meet at lest the first 3 of your categories. Although dispensationalism is not popular today, the brethren teachers had a great impact on both theologians and popularizers for many years beyond their lifespans.
8. Craig L. Adams says:

   March 18, 2012 at 9:19 pm

   It’s just my opinion, but I think Wolfhart Pannenberg must be on the list. His is such an intellectually challenging and stimulating theological project.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm

     Agreed. I studied with him for a year and have kept up with his writing over the intervening years. Sadly, he is not well these days. And I was disappointed in his Systematic Theology. I liked his earlier writings and especially Theology and the Kingdom of God.
     • Craig L. Adams says:

       March 19, 2012 at 4:49 pm

       I’ve long been a Pannenberg fan because he was the first theologian I encountered who seemed to understand how scientific method influences our understanding of knowledge. So, his theology has always been at the interface of science and theology. I think he came to mind so readily because of having recently read F. LeRon Shults book The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology where Shults shows that Pannenberg’s epistemology foreshadows what post-foundationalist thinkers are currently saying. (Thanks for replying.)
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm

         Pannenberg is post-foundationalist in that he affirms the coherence theory of truth and reserves the totality of truth to the future. However, he is a foundationalist insofar as he believes in a universal rationality shared by all human and that Christian truth claims must be justified by that.
9. Tony Pounders says:

   March 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm

   Dr. Olson, If you were asked to to suggest one current theologian as a “must-read”, who would it be? Thanks for your thought-provoking posts.
   • rogereolson says:

     March 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

     It depends on who’s asking. But generally speaking, for those ready for serious theology, Moltmann.
     • Tony Pounders says:

       March 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm

       Yes, it does depend on who is asking. Allow me to narrow the field. Let’s say someone who graduated seminary 20 years ago and is in full-time pastoral ministry. Would Moltmann still be the one?
       • rogereolson says:

         March 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm

         Yes, assuming the person has an intellectual bent. Moltmann is not easy to read or digest. But first and foremost he or she should read Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace. I truly think it will turn out to be one of a few theological classics written in the latter part of the 20th century.
         • Tony Pounders says:

           March 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm

           Thanks for the recommendations. I wrote a paper on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope for a MDiv Seminar back in 1990. We were studying Paul Ricoeur’s work. I was assigned Moltmann and asked to interpret him in light of Ricoeur. Paul Ricoeur is a name I don’t see or hear anymore. I also read Moltmann’s God In Creation for a second year Theology course.
         • rogereolson says:

           March 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm

           Yes, Ricouer is one of those thinkers whose star rose and fell rather suddenly. When I was doing Ph.D. work we required students in religion classes to read Ricouer’s The Symbolism of Evil. Ricouer was all the rage then (late 1970s, early 1980s). Now, who even knows who he was? I know that’s an exaggeration but not a big one. It’s sad how quickly such an important thinker can be largely forgotten.
10. Just Sayin' says:

    March 18, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    I think it wll be philosophers who will be remembered, discussed and debated, not theologians. Thus: Plantinga, Wolsterstorff, MacIntyre, Swinburne, Lane Craig and some younger philosophers it’s still not possible to single out (there are plenty to choose from). Canada’s bestselling author J. I. Packer will be remembered, conservative publishers will surely be reprinting his major books for the next several decades. But what can future scholars say about his ideas? Not much, not in the way that Barth, for example, is supplying ongoing discussion and debate among today’s theologians. Miroslav Volf might be one candidate for your list. Packer’s successor at Regent, Hans Boersma, is also a favourite of mine — one to watch!
11. ScottW says:

    March 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    Dr. Olson- To broaden your map I think the late Orthodox theologian Fr. Georges Florovsky will continue to be important, along with his student Met. John Zizoulas.
12. Jeremy Myers says:

    March 19, 2012 at 12:42 am

    Can you believe I’ve never read anything by Hauerwas? I guess I better get started. What are some of his best works?
    • rogereolson says:

      March 19, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      I’m asking that, too. Until recently I’ve had very little interest in him. I talked with him a couple weeks ago and found him more personally engaging than I thought. But, then, I didn’t argue with him, either.
      • Darcyjo says:

        March 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        You have this current student of Dr. Hauerwas laughing out loud in the library!
        • rogereolson says:

          March 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm

          Explain why.
13. Rob says:

    March 19, 2012 at 6:44 am

    Dr. Olson, This is an interesting topic! Maybe this fits into one of your four categories mentioned above, but I think one way to predict who will be influential 50 years from now would be to think about what the church may look like then. By that I mean in terms of church structure. At least in America, the church is being pushed more into the margins so theologies that square well with that type of environment would have the most influence. For me I think theologians of the Anabaptist/Neo-Anabaptist persuasion would fit this category.
14. Timothy says:

    March 19, 2012 at 8:19 am

    No Hermann or Kahler? “What caused these other theologians (e.g., Dorner) to be remembered?” Interesting question but I have never heard of Dorner so perhaps in UK he is not remembered. And Bushnell would only have been heard of by a few. Is this a very Americo-centric selection?
    • rogereolson says:

      March 19, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      I don’t think so. The only Americans in the list are Bushnell and Rauschenbusch. Dorner was extremely influential on Barth and widely considered, during his own lifetime, the mediating theologian par excellence. Unfortunately, he was eclipsed by Ritschl soon after his death. I don’t think any more have heard of Hermann or Kahler than Dorner and Bushnell (at least in America). The book will be published by an American publisher, so it’s natural to include a couple of influential American theologians others may not be as familiar with.
15. Joshua Penduck says:

    March 19, 2012 at 8:58 am

    I think Hauerwas’ popularity is more than simply his review in Time. Many of the leading Christian ethicists – and many of the new generation of leading ethicists – have been immensely influenced by Hauerwas. For instance, Samuel Wells, Joel Shuman, John Swinton, Brian Brock, Glen Stassen, Robert Song, Michael Cartwright, John Berkman, William Willimon (I could go on) have all counted Hauerwas as an inspiration. Yes, it may be the case that in 50 years, all these might be forgotten – after all, who in 1900 could have imagined the impact a figure such as Barth could have had? – but from the present indications there is no reason to imagine that Hauerwas’ influence will lessen (other than through sheer speculation). Hauerwas’ influence extends beyond the issue of pacificism (though that is where he is most widely known, it is where I think he is at his weakest): he has had an impact on ecclesiological ethics (Wells, Willimon and Cartwright, for example), and increasingly in the area of bioethics (especially on medical practice and posthumanism). In looking through your four categories, I would say that Hauerwas has filled most of them (at least from current trends): I have already noted the influence he has had on many leading Christian ethicists (and he himself is one of the most widely read Christian ethicists); he is a prolific writer (though mainly through the essay format and journals), though I would not want to put too much emphasis on how MUCH a figure has written (after all, Yoder did not write to an extensive degree) – and he is being widely translated (my Ukrainian and Polish friends read him!); much of his originality grows from how he has plausibly started the bridging of the divide between Barthian and Thomist eclesiological ethics; and finally he has had a secondary impact on contemporary culture, in particular through his thinking on cultural and bioethical issues (I have seen at first hand how Hauerwas has had an impact on British politics through his – albeit limited – influence on the cultural philosopher Philip Blond). In terms of Christian ethicists in the second half of the 20th Century, other than O’Donovan and Cavanaugh, I would find it difficult to name someone who has had as much influence has Hauerwas.
16. Chris Criminger says:

    March 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Hi Everyone, I would recommend people read Hauerwas’s popular works first like “Resident Aliens” (which he did with William Williman) and I loved his challenging “After Christendom.” Of course, there is a work called a “Hauerwas Reader” which will give you a good overall sense of Hauerwas ideas.
17. Joshua Thiering says:

    March 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    This is partially a list of people I hope will be read:
    Jeremy Begbie, with the Theology through the Arts, could potentially make a sizeable impact to Christian attitudes to art and theology, and his work is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Rowan Williams, I’m continually surprised how many nonAnglican/Episcopalians know, read and quote his work. And he has as Benjamin Meyers puts it “a way of making the familiar strange,” which I think resonates with the darker tones of postmodernism. I’m also a little curious of what people 50 years from now will say of Peter Rollins.
18. Cameron says:

    March 20, 2012 at 10:50 am

    All the names mentioned are worthy contenders. I don’t want to sound like the annoying person three rows from the front of the lecture hall, but they all seem to have one thing in common: they’re (very, very nearly) all white men. I have nothing against white men—I’m proud to call myself one! But I wonder what the fact that few women ( I counted one) or people of non-Northern-European descent have been suggested says.
    Are there really no women theologians with the sort of influence that will be remembered in fifty years’ time? Black? Hispanic? African? Australian Aborigine? Trans-gender? Or homosexual?
    The way we label these sorts of theologians mightn’t help. We’ve already discussed whether biblical scholars count. What about feminist theologians? Are they really theologians, or just feminists who quote the Bible a lot? Would liberation theologians make the cut if they discussed ‘real’ theology more? Do we need to specify what sort of theologian actually counts?
    Similarly, does the list of criteria limit the possibilities to professional, academic theologians? Or do we add that as an unspoken criteria? The fact that no-one remembers Langdon Gilkey suggests that activity within the academy mightn’t be so relevant to the question after all.
    I guess my point is that we must be careful who we include and exclude when we’re having discussions about who might be considered important in years to come.
19. Jamie says:

    March 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Does George Lindbeck fall outside the time frame you are considering? I’m thinking he might be remembered because The Nature of Doctrine could plausibly be seen as an agenda setting work.
    • rogereolson says:

      March 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm

      Ah, but so full of problems! I think Vanhoozer is better. (I don’t even know him and have never met him, but I think his work on the canonical-linguistic theory of doctrine is far superior to Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic one which reduces doctrine to grammar.) But, to the point… Years ago there was a theologian who was saying many of the same things Lindbeck later said. I don’t know why he doesn’t get more credit for postliberalism (a term he didn’t use). His name was Paul Holmer and he was very influential during the 1960s and 1970s. I met him and heard him speak (a sort of debate with Alvin Plantinga) sometime during the 1980s. His book The Grammar of Faith was a classic of what was then called Wittgensteinian fideism (not a term he embraced). I often wonder why people who were so popular and influential for a decade or two drop off the radar so entirely only a few years later. For those of you who may have heard of, read or knew Holmer…He lived not far from me in St. Paul and I ran into him at used bookstores often when he was ancient. I was so young and wet behind the ears I couldn’t get up the nerve to speak to him. But I read him voraciously and went through a Wittgensteinian fideism phase through him and D. Z. Phillips (and Willem Zuurdeeg-another forgotten theologian).
20. Alex says:

    March 20, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Strongly appreciate Moltmann. I believe he is already demonstrating his “gianthood”; after all The Theology of Hope was written during the Johnson administration and his theology is relevant and widely read today. There are other would be giants but I think we are in an age of synthesizing theologians who combine influences of previous giants and today's more current creative theologians, all with an emphasis on biblical exegesis. You mentioned N.T. Wright. Others come to mind, e.g. Richard Bauckham and even T.F. Torrance. I also think some liberationist theology will be read well into the future – James Cone, Gustavo Gutierrez et al.
21. Daniel James Levy says:

    March 21, 2012 at 12:34 am

    I think if we forget the influence of Moltmann we’re in trouble. Moltmann, I would say was the most influential theological of the second half of the 20th century.
22. MattR says:

    March 21, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Since Jamie mentioned Lindbeck, I’d also say Hans Frei, “The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.” This was part of my intro (through Hauerwas) to narrative theology. Not talked about as much recently, but you can see the influence on much of post-foundationalist/narrative theology.
    • rogereolson says:

      March 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Agreed. I thought I mentioned Frei, but I might have intended to and got side tracked. My mentor was a student with Frei at Yale. He told me that Frei had a nervous breakdown just before his comprehensive exams. He had to take time off and go sit near the ocean and recover his equilibrium. He told me that to comfort me as I was on the verge of one myself just before exams. I agree that The Eclipse of Narrative is a classic of modern/postmodern theology.

What Wikipedia Has to Say About the Emerging/Emergent Church. Part 1/2

Unprepared for the Spirit's waters ahead?

An Introduction

I thought it might be helpful to "mark" what Wikipedia.com has to say about the Emerging or Emergent Church (E/EC) (dated: March 20, 2012) so as to provide a historical reference point at some later time in the postmodern journey of the 21st Century's church. It has been a year from this date that Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, began to generate all forms of discussion and diatribes.

Hence, it was no more than a month later when this blogsite was borne to begin addressing the many misleading statements and inaccurate discussions occurring at the time. Mostly because I knew Rob Bell and what he had taught over the past dozen years at Mars Hill Church of Grand Rapids, and because I wanted to leave my family and friends some help in discerning the newer, more formidable biblical developments occurring in the area of biblical research and Christian ministry being verbalized and expressed in contemporary fashion.

However, being new to the blogosphere I initially began writing by using the name skinhead which later changed to my own name once I became more comfortable within this digital form of media and the immediacy of its global electronic publishing aspect. And if one were to read the initial outlay of articles in a chronological order it will be seen that this site was initially interested in responding to Rob Bell's critics and the many forms of misleading statements (and  church dogmas) that were leading the discussions against the E/EC at the time.

It was also during this formative period of composition that I began to develop new goals for the usage of this form of social media and so, began re-orientating this blog away from predominantly responding to Evangelic criticism and towards a fuller, more rounded, set of discussions dealing with the many themes within E/E Christianity itself. That is, rather than playing defense I decided to play offense in the age-old Christian tradition of a responsive biblical exposition.

As such, I wished to create a "road map," if you well, that could help direct Christians both old and new through the many confusing messages emanating from the pulpits-and-press of an intentionally fundamental or conservative Christianity. And towards a more foundational and contemporary set of analysis peppered with Spirit-filled inspiration, encouragement, and growth, as the E/EC shared the good news, or the gospel, of Jesus. Mostly it was about updating the gospel from its 19th-and 20th century portrayal to one set within the post-modernism of the 21st century stripped of non-orthodox dogmas perceived by the church as orthodox.

The compass of Emergent Christianity shares a broader, more lively

connection to the postmodern world around us. It includes all the

advances of the sciences as well as all the post-structuralist discussions

that can be found within Christianity itself. It seeks to include as

many conversants into the conversation of Jesus through the vitality of

contribution and participation while authenticizing each participant

via a supportive network of faith and fellowship centered around Jesus

as Savior and Lord.

                                                                                                                          - R.E. Slater, March 21, 2012

Mine Own Journey

What made this blog different was my determination to support an E/EC doctrine of Scripture that was less evangelically dogmatic and more open to current theologies and postmodern discoveries being debated. It had to touch on all the "hot" issues, without demanding an "answer" for every question raised. While at the same time seek to develop a sense of discernment amongst its readership who were learning to listen first, and reply later, when more fully informed. It also had to start somewhere, so naturally, it had to start with where I was at in my very conservative, very anti-postmodernistic, and evangelic mindset. And from there I have been slowly working out my own understanding of what postmodernistic Christianity might look like. My journey has been radical when compared to where I began decades earlier, but it has been a slow journey these past dozen years wherein God has continually led and guided by His Spirit so that I now feel more comfortable in sharing my thoughts and narrative.

This journey has also given to me a greater sense of freedom and relief when finally discovering a community of like-minded Christians who also were searching the Scriptures and finding similar sentiments for less dogmatically-bound Christian ideologies coupled with a richer interpretation of Scriptures earlier held back by limited information and doctrinal (or cultural) preferences. Rather than fearing these newer developments in biblical research they have conversely lent a broader, deeper understanding of God and His creation, of Jesus, of His gospel, and of the Church's place in this technological global age of the Kingdom. It is an exciting story and one that I wish to share with as many as are interested in discovering the same with myself.

Build higher walls to keep the water out?

Learning to Re-Learn

However, to properly complete this quest one must learn to use post-modernistic language within a post-structural framework which would import a 21st Century mindset and epistemology into a moribund Christianity overcome with fear. One that would be both missional and existentially beneficial. However, the truth is, we are probably a generation or two away from being able to think or conceptualize, speak or conceive, of ourselves and our world in this type of postmodernistic linguistics without undergoing both personally, and as a world-society, a very formative, if not radically destabilizing re-orientation, to our own present patterns of thinking and societal interaction. A radical destabilization that would disrupt any current forms of personal and social philosophies in this present era of secular modernism. As such, this journey has only but begun even though it's deficiencies were readily observed during World War I (cf. the many disparaging commentaries by the 1920's newsman Walter Lippmann on modernity's less-than-glorious-shine) though for myself, it is but 50 years old (birthed, as it were, for my generation with the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 70s). And for today's Millennials, with the felling of the World Trade Center Towers in 2001. Hence, I would imagine that by the mid-21st century as postmodernism matures over the next 35 years, that another sort of philosophical angst will arise to extend and eventually replace the last of the Modernistic era begun so long ago under during the time of European Enlightenment (1500s). As we transition from post-modernism to an era of filled with technical revolution, social media, global networking, ecological overburden, and a burgeoning population escalating by the billions. 

We must learn to re-learn. To translate all that we thought we knew into
newer paradigms that are less restrictive and cognitively destructive.
To lift up our conversations about God, and about ourselves, that
would allow the bible to breathe again, while separating ourselves
from our many traditional ideologies and behaviours that
have restricted us from responding to God.

                                                                                                             - R.E. Slater, March 21, 2012

This will require a disorienting period of de-construction set against the more rapid pace of change that for many of us have not been taught to deal with it by our own over-protective churches and culturally restrictive barriers. A dissettling period of change that will come with the consequential results of an ever increasing global-cultural awareness and interaction. It will be as much formative (for those embracing it) as dis-formative (for those rejecting it) and will require substantially rethinking our own ideas of God and of the Holy Spirit's movement within this time of breaking and remaking. Those that survive will learn to become transformative people even as their faith has transformed. And those that don't survive will pleasantly sit within their own self-constructed glass houses of fret and worry thinking that the world has finally reached its end even as they do themselves. Which is a sad journal to write when mis-believing that one's God cannot maintain pace with the world of His own making. To disbelieve that this God cannot deftly move and adapt to this world's every era without feeling defeated by it, despite His children's more fearful outlook and steady refusal to disbelieve the spiritual changes they cannot see.



Making do rather than relocating.

For many Christians this period will be one of repentance, confession, discipleship, and obedience. Of putting off the "old man" and putting on the "new man". Of transformation, conformation and reformation. Of spiritual "death" and "resurrection". But by whatever name given, in postmodernistic terms we must actively be engaged in revising - and indeed, in participating - within a radically dis-orientating epistemology. One that is first centered around Jesus (meaning that it is first and foremost Christological in perspective and foundation) and all that that means when we think of Jesus' teachings found in the Gospels of the New Testament. And especially as His teachings strove against the establish religious traditionalism that actively fought against His retelling of God's grace to all men everywhere. As such, present-day Christianity must grow beyond its protective epistemologies which lately have become centered around non-Christological dogmas; maintaining overly strict theologic interpretations of God and the Bible; making naïve, short-sighted proclamations by fiat that declare prohibitive, ecclesiastical proscriptions and injunctions; promoting a Christian exclusivity and locked borders to those different from ourselves by gender, race, or sex; and that would turn a deaf ear to the social injustices around us; or sadly display the obligatory need to criticize others unaffiliated with its deeply-honored traditions; while ever exhibiting a deepset fear of change while feeling threatened by the same.

Nonetheless, the church must promote a more open postmodern epistemology lest God's gospel message in Jesus become lost within its own well-meaning faith communities built upon the harder soils of epistemic skepticism and disbelief where inadequate root and depth cannot be established from within its austere worship structures. Nor so foolishly instill an atmosphere of fear and doubt amongst its eager congregants so that the birds of the air may more easily snatch up the precious seed of God's grace lost upon the church's harder grounds refusing to conjoin to the Spirit's mystery of divine participation. Nor suffer its Christian witness to become so ineffectual as by limiting the pouring out of the Holy Spirit's grace by not relenting of its many unnecessary, restrictive dogmas, and systematized dis-interpretations of Jesus' incarnation, ministry, passion and resurrection. Or by actively prohibiting any adequate nourishment or growth necessary within the spiritually hungry lives of new believers freshly entering upon the Kingdom of God from the fastness of humanism's many wildernesses by errantly remitting to pre-ordained standards of yesteryear's sacred wastelands.

Thus, my idea was to provide within this website practical helps-and-aides for those wishing to re-discover a newer faith of spiritual vitality, cultural relevancy, and a nurturing Christian witness by describing a more progressive form of Christianity. To utilize this website as a collection of other writer's insights who are similarly burdened as myself to help the church become more understanding of postmodernism and how it might utilize that knowledge in better reconstructing a more relevant Christian faith and witness. As such, I will wish to write or report on a number of areas - some of which will be biblical and academic; some devotional and inspirational; some practical and pragmatic; some scientific; some philosophic; and especially postmodern. But to speak out as one coherent tongue in the name of the God I know who comes to fill the whole air with His love, and to shake this old, broken earth awake from its doleful antipathies, oppressions, and wickedness, by an ever-expanding, and more relevant witness, by a postmodern Christianity freshly reawakened to its own missional calling and service to all men everywhere by whatever forms and undertakings this may take.

Consequently, I have provided a plethora of Christian articles gleaned from a variety of sources and authorships along the sidebar-columns of this blog. So that if any one emergent topic might be troubling (perhaps starting with some of the issues mentioned below in the Wikipedia listing) that these links may provide further direction and helps by way of personal research and objective testimony. And thereby provide more clarity to an area of confusion and concern facing today's modernistic church in its programs and objectives. And if this site is not helpful, then perhaps the reader may be better enabled to find more biblical help and direction elsewhere having first begun here witnessing a vast array of Emergent testimonies, missional projects and banded fellowships.

Emergent Christianity embraces the mystery of the divine,

expressed without explanation to our resisting minds.

Witnessed in Jesus' paradoxical statements having no answers

but the answer of faith that we must embrace and obey.

                                                                                        - R.E. Slater, March 21, 2012

Overall, I have used this blog as a way to integrate 21st Century E/EC discussion into the many areas of the past 20th Century Church's mission and teachings. And have used my own theological training, experience, and participation in the E/EC to help direct us into inquiries that might create more faithful, more biblically orientated, forms of discussion. My first hurdles were the many criticisms and vitriol I was listening to from very earnest evangelical brethren who had not had time to digest E/E Christianity's newer practices and teachings. Even as I, myself, had come through those same turbulent obstacles - but I also had had many more years to digest what I was listening to through providential placement within an emerging church fellowship. One that I took advantage of while many of my other friends refused to consider it, whether as participants or early rejectees. Thus, I have had time to think on, and pray about, E/E Christianity. To turn it over and consider its many sides and angles. Sometimes through anger and disappointment. Sometimes through rejection and refusal. And at other times through a great sense of relief and joy when it all made sense. It was a very dis-orienting time which was not especially helped along because of this movement's immaturity  (and ofttimes arrogant, if not unwisely spoken, controversial statements) made in the name of Jesus with all the sanctimony of a superior self-righteousness of the "haves" over the "have nots."

Still Under Development

My earliest dismay with E/EC topics came because of its many immature pronouncements still under development and not clearly understood by its progenitors. Self-proclaimed lecterns distilling by fiat their beliefs and their standards to newly initiated audiences whose only acceptable response must have been one of abject approval. To follow without reproach or dissension pronouncements that assumed a rightness of position without a forthrightness of discussion. That created dissension rather than engagement. That demanded an unhealthy acceptance without sufficient explanation. That were proclaimed under the earliest banners of being participants in "a mystery of divine secrets" or some such blather. That gave way to an inner-crowd of templed priests disdaining interaction at the more beggarly hands of the masses seeking after these newly crafted templed truths so new, so raw. Consequently, I was put off by the smugness and distance of E/EC's self-proclaimed disciples untrained themselves except in skills of inarticulated and hidden doctrines known only to an inner few and smelling of sectarian (or worse, Gnostic) rot. It took time to hear what E/EC really was saying when separated from its earliest disciples and their many conflicting arguments. Eventually I got it. But I got it only after years of patient listening and internal debate unhelped by those around me. To say that this was a very lonely time of providential placement in my life would be an understatement.

However, emergent Christianity was being birthed right before my eyes making me at first necessarily skeptical of its earliest, immature pronouncements. I knew historically that after 2000 years of church history you could count on one hand the times new movements got it right. How then could this new thing, that I and my family were involved with, be one of those rare times when it might be right after all? When at so many other times during the history of the church what was being birthed over the centuries were simply new Christian sects, or cults of some sort, rather than proper and legitimate Christian philosophies that could recreate and give renaissance (or reformation) to the life of the Church? One that would radically remove itself from the past 2000 years of Church history and would at once embrace all the current postmodern/post-structural  developments of our 21st Century sciences and cultures. That would also carried with it the potentiality to radically re-integrate itself into the very lives and livelihoods of its global faith adherents and communities rapidly through the use of technology? Especially since it was occurring right before me as a new seeker, and unsuspecting draftee, trained in the theological past and steeped in the many orthodox traditions and systematic creeds-and-formulas of the historic Church!?



Try to make the best of it and just leave.

Clearly the ground had moved beneath my feet and all about me was a dizzying array of disorientation unaligned to anything solid that I could cling to or trust. It took time. Lots of it. To determine what this new thing - this new movement - was. And it didn't help that it was occurring right before me as a newborn babe rising from its cradle of immaturity bearing all the temperamental foibles of early childhood development that would rapidly embrace an acme of teenage acumen fraught with a troubling self-awareness and identity problems! Such that, even within itself, though it bore promise like a son or daughter, it also bore trouble for the observing, participating, parent. Something that would have to be sorted out. And in a way, is being sorted out here within the many articles of this website before all the world to see.

Still, it was a new movement which both I, and its many new congregants, were still struggling to encapsulate for personal adoption and enactment. It was messy and it was filled at times with historical Christian errors and sectarian untruths as I observed when questioning its various proponents and undiscerning adoptees. It had to be sifted and formed. Which for me meant that I had to repackage what I was listening to, and then latter, find myself going public with what I knew - including both the good and the bad of this emerging movement - to any who would listen. To overcome these hurdles it necessitated from me a reflective criticism (or critique) on what I was observing. At other times it simply needed a better response, a fuller narrative, and a more accepting mindset of understanding from an older Christian too set in his traditional orthodoxies.

"Just because one believes a thing to be so does not make it so.

The ground of our reality may be personal. It may be subjective.

But the greater ground of our reality is found within the stricter

confines of a more objective community that will question our

opinions. Our beliefs. Our thoughts until such a time as we can

reasonably determine for ourselves what makes belief a more

legitimate thing than pure supposition  or imposition placed

importunely upon others.

We are neither the start, nor the end, to the  faith of another.

Faith is God's most precious gift. To that gift we may only hope to

explore it within a joined participation with each other in an endless

journey of divine mystery and sacred thought."

                                                                                              - R.E. Slater, March 14, 2012

Taking the Time to Adjust and Adapt

I also sensed that the proponents of E/E Christianity needed to give the church-at-large more time to accept their insights through a more patient engagement, discussion and role modeling rather than simply throwing stones at all who would disagree. The push back would be more stones thrown from the other side, feeling wounded, and threatened, and greatly misunderstood for all their past, and very heart-felt labors, offerings, and personal sacrifices made in the name of Christian endeavor. But what finally forced my internal doubts to acceptance was the welling ground swell of heated conservative reaction to E/E Christianity in the spring of 2011. What I heard from its critics made stunningly clear to me, in juxtaposition, what E/E Christianity was all about. For the many reasons its critics gave simply fell flat to what I had finally constructed of E/E practices and teachings (orthopraxy and orthodoxy, respectively). I could no longer go along with such harsh judgments as to participate with the current anti-Christian mindset of the present day church wishing to cling to its dogmas rather than embrace its newest member of the faith, warts and all. To become discipled as well as a discipler. To become the patient parent willing to change with son or daughter and find at journey's end a richness of fellowship not previously present. Where one-and-all may change together. May grow together. May enliven each other. Learn from each other. Fellowship with each other. And finally, simply grow old together in the strength in their unity. That was my hope. And still is.

Hence this website/blog, and hence my plea to the Church at large - and to those sceptical of Christianity-in-general - to not despair but take hope. The Church has been guilt of many things, but it can reform and seek to put its house aright through repentance and re-engagement upon the things that really matter to God. We are to keep our eyes and hearts set upon Jesus. To trust in the leadership of the Holy Spirit. To continually work at discerning our lives and what we hear presented around us! To withdraw from Christian community when judged necessary. And to re-engage in Christian community when pleasing to the Lord. To understand that we make mistakes of judgment. And commit errors of discernment. And can fail in the crucial times of life when so many depend upon us and look for direction.

But overall we are to continually seek God and allow His grace and mercy to form our steps and move our hearts confident that all will be made clear one day. And no longer will darkness usurp when looking into the mirror of self, community, mission, or even the very heart of God! But we are to stay the course and not despair. To pray that we become seeds planted in the rich top soils of the Spirit. To use our hands and feet where we can. Our mouths and pens. Our skills and abilities. Our imaginations and passions. For God has a plan for our misshapened lives. It is He who will rule and reign through a Kingdom oft misunderstood and considered upside-down and inside-out. But not a religious Kingdom. But a real flesh-and-blood Kingdom that meets the needs of the destitute, the deprived, the unwanted, the unloved. For this is a Kingdom that many are called but few learn to enter and there remain. It is built along a narrow pathway though the way may seem broad at first. Yet many temptations will come to harm and rob its joys, its fullness, its reality. Even so, through it all God will reign and His love and wisdom will not be defeated.

R.E. Slater

March 20, 2012
rev. March 24, 2012
rev. September 3, 2013
edited in brief, December 2, 2014



Or, think and plan ahead for God's movement of grace.

 

t o   b e   c o n t i n u e d -

What Wikipedia Has to Say About the

Emerging/Emergent Church

Part 2/2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-wikipedia-has-to-say-about_26.html 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Emerging Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

Last updated: March 20, 2012

The emerging church, sometimes wrongly equated with the emergent movement or emergent conversation, (see "Definitions and terminology" and "Similar labels" below for clarification) is a Christian movement of the late 20th and early 21st century that crosses a number of theological boundaries: participants can be described as Protestant, post-Protestant, Catholic, evangelical^[1] post-evangelical, liberal, post-liberal, conservative, post-conservative, anabaptist, adventist,^[2] reformed, charismatic, neocharismatic, and post-charismatic. Proponents, however, believe the movement transcends such "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community.

Contents 1 Definitions and terminology 1.1 Similar labels 2 History 3 Values and characteristics 3.1 Trinitarian based values 3.2 Post-Christendom mission and evangelism 3.3 Postmodern worldview and hermeneutics 3.4 Generous orthodoxy 3.5 Centered set 3.6 Authenticity and conversation 3.7 Missional living 3.8 Communitarian or egalitarian ecclesiology 3.9 Creative and rediscovered spirituality 3.10 Use of new technologies 3.11 Morality and justice 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

Definitions and terminology

The emerging church favors the use of simple story and narrative. Members of the movement often place a high value on good works or social activism, including missional living.^[3] While some Evangelicals emphasize eternal salvation, many in the emerging church emphasize the here and now.^[4] Key themes of the emerging church are couched in the language of reform, Praxis-oriented lifestyles, Post-evangelical thought, and incorporation or acknowledgment of political and Postmodern elements. ^[5] Many of the movement's participants use terminology that originates from postmodern literary theory, social network theory, narrative theology, and other related fields.^{[citation needed][original research?]} Some have noted a difference between the terms "emerging" and "Emergent." While emerging is a wider, informal, church-based, global movement, Emergent refers to an official organization, the Emergent Village, associated with Brian McLaren, and has also been called the "Emergent stream." ^[6]

Emerging churches can be found throughout the globe, predominantly in North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa. Some attend local independent churches or house churches^[7][8][9] while others worship in traditional Christian denominations.

Stuart Murray states:

Emerging churches are so disparate there are exceptions to any generalisations. Most are too new and too fluid to clarify, let alone assess their significance. There is no consensus yet about what language to use: 'new ways of being church'; 'emerging church'; 'fresh expressions of church'; 'future church'; 'church next'; or 'the coming church'. The terminology used here contrasts 'inherited' and 'emerging' churches.^[10][11]

Ian Mobsby observes:

The use of the phrase 'emerging church' appears to have been used by Larson & Osborne in 1970 in the context of reframing the meaning 'church' in the latter part of the twentieth century.^[12] This book, contains a short vision of the 'emerging church' which has a profoundly contemporary feel in the early twenty-first century ... Larson & Osborne note the following themes: Rediscovering contextual and experimental mission in the western church. Forms of church that are not restrained by institutional expectations. Open to change and God wanting to do a new thing. Use of the key word ..."and". Whereas the heady polarities of our day seek to divide us into an either-or camp, the mark of the emerging Church will be its emphasis on both-and. For generations we have divided ourselves into camps: Protestants and Catholics, high church and low, clergy and laity, social activists and personal piety, liberals and conservatives, sacred and secular, instructional and underground. It will bring together the most helpful of the old and best of the new, blending the dynamic of a personal Gospel with the compassion of social concern. It will find its ministry being expressed by a whole people, wherein the distinction between clergy and laity will be that of function, not of status or hierarchical division. In the emerging Church, due emphasis will be placed on both theological rootage and contemporary experience, on celebration in worship and involvement in social concerns, on faith and feeling, reason and prayer, conversion and continuity, the personal and the conceptual.^[13]

Similar labels

Although some emergent thinkers such as Brian McLaren and other Christian scholars such as D. A. Carson use "emerging" and "emergent" as synonyms, a large number of participants in the emerging church movement maintain a distinction between them. The term emergent church was coined in 1981 by Catholic political theologian, Johann Baptist Metz for use in a different context.[14] "Emergent" is sometimes more closely associated with Emergent Village. Those participants in the movement who assert this distinction believe "emergents" and "emergent village" to be a part of the emerging church movement but prefer to use the term "emerging church" to refer to the movement as a whole while using the term "emergent" in a more limited way, referring to Brian McLaren and emergent village.

Many of those within the emerging church movement who do not closely identify with "emergent village" tend to avoid that organization's interest in radical theological reformulation and focus more on new ways of "doing church" and expressing their spirituality. Mark Driscoll and Scot McKnight have now voiced concerns over Brian McLaren and the "emergent thread."^[15] Other evangelical leaders such as Shane Claiborne have also come out to distance himself from the emerging church movement, its labels and the "emergent brand."^[16]

Some observers consider the "emergent stream" to be one major part within the larger emerging church movement. This may be attributed to the stronger voice of the 'emergent' stream found in the US which contrasts the more subtle and diverse development of the movement in the UK, Australia and New Zealand over a longer period of time. In the US, some Roman Catholics have also begun to describe themselves as being part of the emergent conversation.^[1] As a result of the above factors, the use of correct vocabulary to describe a given participant in this movement can occasionally be awkward, confusing, or controversial. Key voices in the movement have been identified with Emergent Village, thus the rise of the nomenclature "emergent" to describe participants in the movement.

Marcus Borg defines the term "emerging paradigm" in his 2003 book The Heart of Christianity. He writes

The emerging paradigm has been visible for well over a hundred years. In the last twenty to thirty years, it has become a major grassroots movement among both laity and clergy in "mainline" or "old mainline" Protestant denominations.

Borg provides a compact summary of this "emerging paradigm" as

a way of seeing the Bible (and the Christian tradition as a whole) as historical, metaphorical, and sacramental, [and] a way of seeing the Christian life as relational and transformational.^[17]

History

There has been a strong bias in the US to ignore a history to the emerging church that preceded the US Emergent organization. This began with Mike Riddell and Mark Pierson in New Zealand from 1989, and with a number of practitioners in the UK including Jonny Baker, Ian Mobsby, Kevin, Ana and Brian Draper, and Sue Wallace amongst others, from around 1992.[18] The influence of the Nine O'Clock Service has been ignored also, owing to its notoriety, yet much that was practised there was influential on early proponents of alternative worship.[19] The US organization emerged in the late 1990s.

What is common to the identity of many of these emerging church projects that began in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, is that they developed with very little central planning on behalf of the established denominations.^[20] They occurred as the initiative of particular groups wanting to start new contextual church experiments, and are therefore very 'bottom up'. Murray says that these churches began in a spontaneous way, with informal relationships formed between otherwise independent groups^[21] and that many became churches as a development from their initial more modest beginnings.^[22][23]

Values and characteristics

Trinitarian based values

Gibbs and Bolger^[24] interviewed a number of people involved in leading emerging churches and from this research have identified some core values in the emerging church, including desires to imitate the life of Jesus; transform secular society; emphasise communal living; welcome outsiders; be generous and creative; and lead without control. Ian Mobsby suggests Trinitarian Ecclesiology is the basis of these shared international values:^[25][26]

Ian Mobsby also suggests that the Emerging Church is centred on a combination of models of Church and of Contextual Theology that draw on this Trinitarian base: the Mystical Communion and Sacramental models of Church,^[27] and the Synthetic and Transcendent models of Contextual Theology.^[28][29]

According to Ian Mobsby, the Emerging Church has reacted to the missional needs of postmodern culture and re-acquired a Trinitarian basis to its understanding of Church as Worship, Mission and Community. He argues this movement is over and against some forms of conservative evangelicalism and other reformed ecclesiologies since the enlightenment that have neglected the Trinity, which has caused problems with certainty, judgementalism and fundamentalism and the increasing gap between the Church and contemporary culture.^[30]

Post-Christendom mission and evangelism

According to Stuart Murray, Christendom is the creation and maintenance of a Christian nation by ensuring a close relationship of power between the Christian Church and its host culture.^[31] Today, churches may still attempt to use this power in mission and evangelism.^[32] The emerging church considers this to be unhelpful. Murray summarizes Christendom values as: a commitment to hierarchy and the status quo; the loss of lay involvement; institutional values rather than community focus; church at the centre of society rather than the margins; the use of political power to bring in the Kingdom; religious compulsion; punitive rather than restorative justice; marginalisation of women, the poor, and dissident movements; inattentiveness to the criticisms of those outraged by the historic association of Christianity with patriarchy, warfare, injustice and patronage; partiality for respectability and top-down mission; attractional evangelism; assuming the Christian story is known; and a preoccupation with the rich and powerful.^[32]

The emerging church seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making 'truth claims' with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.^{[citation needed]}

In the face of criticism, some in the emerging church respond that this it is important to attempt a "both and" approach to redemptive and incarnational theologies. Some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are perceived as "overly redemptive" and therefore in danger of condemning people by communicating the Good News in aggressive and angry ways.^[33] A more loving and affirming approach is proposed in the context of post-modernity where distrust may occur in response to power claims. It is suggested that this can form the basis of a constructive engagement with 21st century post-industrial western cultures. According to Ian Mobsby, the suggestion that the emerging church is mainly focused on deconstruction and the rejection of current forms of church should itself be rejected.^[34]

Postmodern worldview and hermeneutics

The emerging church is a response to the perceived influence of modernism in Western Christianity. As some sociologists commented on a cultural shift that they believed to correspond to postmodern ways of perceiving reality in the late 20th century, some Christians began to advocate changes within the church in response. These Christians saw the contemporary church as being culturally bound to modernism. They changed their practices to relate to the new cultural situation. 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").^[35]

As a result, some in the emerging church believe it is necessary to deconstruct modern Christian dogma. One way this happens is by engaging in dialogue, rather than proclaiming a predigested message, believing that this leads people to Jesus through the Holy Spirit on their own terms. Many in the movement embrace the missiology that drives the movement in an effort to be like Christ and make disciples by being a good example. The emerging church movement contains a great diversity in beliefs and practices, although some have adopted a preoccupation with sacred rituals, good works, and political and social activism. Much of the Emerging Church movement has also adopted the approach to evangelism which stressed peer-to-peer dialogue rather than dogmatic proclamation and proselytizing.^[36]

A plurality of Scriptural interpretations is acknowledged in the emerging church movement. Participants in the movement exhibit a particular concern for the effect of the modern reader's cultural context on the act of interpretation echoing the ideas of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish. Therefore a narrative approach to Scripture, and history are emphasized in some emerging churches over exegetical and dogmatic approaches (such as that found in systematic theology and systematic exegesis), which are often viewed as reductionist. Others embrace a multiplicity of approaches.

A Generous orthodoxy

Some emerging church leaders see interfaith dialogue a means to share their narratives as they learn from the narratives of others.^[37] Some Emerging Church Christians believe there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity that are valuable for humanity to progress toward truth and a better resulting relationship with God, and that these different perspectives deserve Christian charity rather than condemnation.^[38]

A Centered set mindset

The movement appropriates set theory as a means of understanding a basic change in the way the Christian church thinks about itself as a group. Set theory is a concept in mathematics that allows an understanding of what numbers belong to a group, or set. A bounded set would describe a group with clear "in" and "out" definitions of membership. The Christian church has largely organized itself as a bounded set, those who share the same beliefs and values are in the set and those who disagree are outside.^[39]

The centered set does not limit membership to pre-conceived boundaries. Instead a centered set is conditioned on a centered point. Membership is contingent on those who are moving toward that point. Elements moving toward a particular point are part of the set, but elements moving away from that point are not. As a centered-set Christian membership would be dependent on moving toward the central point of Jesus. A Christian is then defined by their focus and movement toward Christ rather than a limited set of shared beliefs and values.^[39]

John Wimber utilized the centered set understanding of membership in his Vineyard Churches. The centered set theory of Christian Churches came largely from missional anthropologist Paul Hiebert. The centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from individual members to the existing center.^[40]

Authenticity and conversation

The movement favors the sharing of experiences via testimonies, prayer, group recitation, sharing meals and other communal practices, which they believe are more personal and sincere than propositional presentations of the Gospel. Teachers in the Emerging Church tend to view the Bible and its stories through a lens which they believe finds significance and meaning for their community's social and personal stories rather than for the purpose of finding cross-cultural, propositional absolutes regarding salvation and conduct.^[41]

The emerging church claims they are creating a safe environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected within modern conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Non-critical, interfaith dialog is preferred over dogmatically-driven evangelism in the movement.^[42] Story and narrative replaces the dogmatic:

The relationship between words and images has changed in contemporary culture. In a post-foundational world, it is the power of the image that takes us to the text. The bible is no longer a principal source of morality, functioning as a rulebook. The gradualism of postmodernity has transformed the text into a guide, a source of spirituality, in which the power of the story as a moral reference point has superseded the didactic. Thus the meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments - even assuming that the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone. Into this milieau the image speaks with power.^[43]

Those in the movement do not engage in aggressive apologetics or confrontational evangelism in the traditional sense, preferring to encourage the freedom to discover truth through conversation and relationships with the Christian community.^[44]

Missional living

Participants in this movement assert that the incarnation of Christ informs their theology. They believe that as God entered the world in human form, adherents enter (individually and communally) into the context around them and aim to transform that culture through local involvement. This holistic involvement may take many forms, including social activism, hospitality and acts of kindness. This beneficent involvement in culture is part of what is called missional living.^[45] Missional living leads to a focus on temporal and social issues, in contrast with a perceived evangelical overemphasis on salvation. Drawing on research and models of contextual theology, Mobsby asserts that the emerging church is using different models of contextual theology than conservative evangelicals, who tend to use a "translation" model of contextual theology^[46] (which has been criticized for being colonialist and condescending toward other cultures); the emerging church tends to use a "synthetic" or "transcendent" model of contextual theology.^[47] The emerging church has charged many conservative evangelical churches with withdrawal from involvement in contextual mission and seeking the contextualization of the gospel.^[48]

Christian communities must learn to deal with the problems and possibilities posed by life in the "outside" world. But of more importance, any attempt on the part of the church to withdraw from the world would be in effect a denial of its mission.^[49]

Many emerging churches have put a strong emphasis on contextualization and, therefore, contextual theology. Contextual theology has been defined as "A way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologising; and social change in that culture."^[50] Emerging churches, drawing on this synthetic (or transcendent) model of contextual theology, seek to have a high view towards the Bible, the Christian people, culture, humanity and justice. It is this "both...and" approach that distinguishes contextual theology.^[51][52]

Emerging communities participate in social action, community involvement, global justice and sacrificial hospitality in an effort to know and share God's grace. At a conference entitled "The Emerging Church Forum" in 2006, John Franke said “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 (sic) a program the Church administers, it is the very core of the Church’s reason for being.”^[53] This focus on missional living and practicing radical hospitality has led many emerging churches to deepen what they are doing by developing a rhythm of life, and a vision of missional loving engagement with the world.^[54]

A mixture of emerging Churches, Fresh Expressions of Church and mission initiatives arising out of the charismatic traditions, have begun describing themselves as new monastic communities. They again draw on a combination of the Mystical Communion Model and Sacramental Models, with a core concern to engage with the question of how we should live. The most successful of these have experimented with a combination of churches centred on place and network, with intentional communities, cafes and centres to practice hospitality. Many also have a rhythm, or rule of life to express what it means to be Christian in a postmodern context.^[55]

Communitarian or egalitarian ecclesiology

Proponents of the movement communicate and interact through fluid and open networks because the movement is decentralized with little institutional coordination. Because of the participation values named earlier, being community through participation affects the governance of most Emerging Churches. Participants avoid power relationships, attempting to gather in ways specific to their local context. In this way some in the movement share with the house church movements a willingness to challenge traditional church structures/organizations though they also respect the different expressions of traditional Christian denominations.[56]

International research suggests that some Emerging Churches are utilizing a Trinitarian basis to being church through what Avery Dulles calls 'The Mystical Communion Model of Church'.^[57]

• Not an institution but a fraternity (or sorority).
• Church as interpersonal community.
• Church as a fellowship of persons - a fellowship of people with God and with one another in Christ.
• Connects strongly with the mystical 'body of Christ' as a communion of the spiritual life of faith, hope and charity.
• Resonates with Aquinas' notion of the Church as the principle of unity that dwells in Christ and in us, binding us together and in him.
• All the external means of grace, (sacraments, scripture, laws etc.) are secondary and subordinate; their role is simply to dispose people for an interior union with God effected by grace.^[58]

Dulles sees the strength in this approach being acceptable to both Protestant and Catholic:

In stressing the continual mercy of God and the continual need of the Church for repentance, the model picks up Protestant theology... [and] in Roman Catholicism... when it speaks of the church as both holy and sinful, as needing repentance and reform...^[59]

The biblical notion of Koinonia, ... that God has fashioned for himself a people by freely communicating his Spirit and his gifts ... this is congenial to most Protestants and Orthodox ... [and] has an excellent foundation in the Catholic tradition.^[60]

Creative and rediscovered spirituality

This can involve everything from expressive, neocharismatic style of worship and the use of contemporary music and films to more ancient liturgical customs and eclectic expressions of spirituality, with the goal of making the church gathering reflect the local community's tastes.

Emerging church practitioners are happy to take elements of worship from a wide variety of historic traditions, including traditions of the Catholic Church, the Anglican churches, the Orthodox churches, and Celtic Christianity. From these and other religious traditions emerging church groups take, adapt and blend various historic church practices including liturgy, prayer beads, icons, spiritual direction, the labyrinth, and lectio divina. The Emerging Church is also sometimes called the "Ancient-Future" church.^[61]

One of the key social drives in Western Post-industrialised countries, is the rise in new/old forms of mysticism.^[62][63] This rise in spirituality appears to be driven by the effects of consumerism, globalisation and advances in information technology.^[64] Therefore, the Emerging Church is operating in a new context of postmodern spirituality, as a new form of mysticism. This capitalizes on the social shift in starting assumptions from the situation that most are regarded as materialist/atheist (the modern position), to the fact that many people now believe in and are searching for something more spiritual (postmodern view). This has been characterised as a major shift from religion to spirituality.^[65]

So, in the new world of 'spiritual tourism', the Emerging Church Movement is seeking to missionally assist people to shift from being spiritual tourists to Christian pilgrims. Many are drawing on ancient Christian resources recontextualised into the contemporary such as contemplation and contemplative forms of prayer, symbolic multi-sensory worship, story telling and many others.^[66] This again has required a change in focus as the majority of unchurched and dechurched people are seeking 'something that works' rather than something that is 'true'.^[67]

Use of new technologies

Emerging-church groups use the Internet as a medium of decentralized communication. Church websites are used as announcement boards for community activity, and they are generally a hub for more participation based new technologies such as blogs, Facebook groups, Twitter accounts, etc. The use of the blog is an especially popular and appropriate means of communication within the Emerging church. Through blogs, members converse about theology, philosophy, art, culture, politics, and social justice, both among their local congregations and across the broader Emerging community. These blogs can be seen to embrace both sacred and secular culture side-by-side as an excellent example of the church's focus on contextual theology.

Morality and justice

Drawing on a more 'Missional Morality' that again turns to the synoptic gospels of Christ, many emerging-church groups draw on an understanding of God seeking to restore all things back into restored relationship. This emphasises God's graceful love approach to discipleship, in following Christ who identified with the socially excluded and ill, in opposition to the Pharisees and Sadducees and their purity rules.^[68]

Under this movement, traditional Christians' emphasis on either individual salvation, end-times theology or the prosperity gospel have been challenged.^[69][70] Many people in the movement express concern for what they consider to be the practical manifestation of God's kingdom on earth, by which they mean social justice. This concern manifests itself in a variety of ways depending on the local community and in ways they believe transcend "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal." This concern for justice is expressed in such things as feeding the poor, visiting the sick and prisoners, stopping contemporary slavery, critiquing systemic and coercive power structures with "postcolonial hermeneutics," and working for environmental causes.^[71]

See also

• Alternative worship
• Cafe church
• Contemplative prayer
• Cultural appropriation
• Ecumenism
• Inculturation
• Missio dei
• Postmodern Christianity
• Progressive Christianity

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Lillian Kwon, (March 14, 2009). "Catholics join Emerging Church conversation". christiantoday.com. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholics.join.emerging.church.conversation/22770.htm. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
2. ^ "From the Margins: Engaging Missional Life in the Seventh-day Adventist Church", Theological News and Notes, Fall 2008, Fuller Theological Seminary.
3. ^ McLaren, Brian, Finding our Way Again (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2008). ISBN 978-0-8499-0114-0. dedication.
4. ^ Webber, Robert, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Karen M. Ward, and Mark Driscoll. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007) p. 102. ISBN 978-0-310-27135-2
5. ^ Kowalski, D. (2007). "Surrender is not an Option: An Evaluation of Emergent Epistemology." Apologetics Index. Retrieved on: August 28, 2011.
6. ^ McKnight, S. (February 2007). "Five Streams of the Emerging Church." Christianity Today. 51(2). Retrieved on 2009-07-11.
7. ^ "ReligionLink.org : Emerging Church trend expands, diversifies". religionlink.org. http://www.religionlink.org/tip_060410.php. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
8. ^ Kreider, Larry (2001). "1". House Church Networks. House to House Publications. ISBN 1-886973-48-2. http://dcfi.org/House2House/House_Church_chapter_one.htm. ^{[dead link]}
9. ^ Pam Hogeweide (2005 [last update]). "The 'emerging church' comes into view". cnnw.com. Christian News Northwest. http://www.cnnw.com/articles/articles04-05-3.html. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
10. ^ Stuart Murray, Church After Christendom, (London: Paternoster Press, 2004), 73.
11. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church: How are they authentically Church and Anglican, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 20.
12. ^ B Larson, R Osbourne, The emerging church, (London: Word Books, 1970), 9-11.
13. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 20-21.
14. ^ Johannes Baptist Metz, The Emergent Church (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981)
15. ^ McKnight, Scot (2010-02-26). "Review: Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity". Christianity Today. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=86862. Retrieved 2010-04-04.
16. ^ Falsani, Cathleen. "The Emerging Church Brand: The Good, the Bad, and the Messy - Shane Claiborne | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners". Blog.sojo.net. http://blog.sojo.net/2010/04/13/the-emerging-church-brand-the-good-the-bad-and-the-messy/. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
17. ^ Borg, Marcus J. (2003). The Heart of Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 6, 13. ISBN 0-06-073068-4.
18. ^ See article written by Steve Collins at http://www.alternativeworship.org/definitions_awec.html
19. ^ Tony Jones The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008) 53
20. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 23-24.
21. ^ Stuart Murray, Church After Christendom, (as above), 69-70.
22. ^ Stuary Murray, Church After Christendom, (as above), 74.
23. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 24.
24. ^ E Gibbs, R Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures, (London: SPCK, 2006), 44-5.
25. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008),65-82.>
26. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007).
27. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007),54-60
28. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing), 28-29.
29. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Cambridge: YTC Press, 2008), 98-101.
30. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 15-18, 32-35, 37-62.
31. ^ Stuart Murray Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) 83-88.
32. ^ ^{a b} Stuart Murray Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) 83-88, 200-202.
33. ^ "> reflection > ianmobsby". emergingchurch.info. http://emergingchurch.info/reflection/ianmobsby/theology.htm. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
34. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007) .
35. ^ Perry, Simon. "Emerging Worship". http://www.simonperry.org.uk/#/emerging-worship/4537335309.
36. ^ Perry, Simon (2003). What is So Holy About Scripture. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. http://www.simonperry.org.uk/#/publications/4549831951.
37. ^ Richard Sudworth, Distinctly Welcoming, Oxford: SUP, 2007.
38. ^ E Gibbs, R Bolger, Emerging Church: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, (USA: Baker), http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=300.
39. ^ ^{a b} Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
40. ^ Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence
41. ^ Frost, Michael (2007-09-14). "Intriguing Michael Frost video". Michael Frost, Founding Director of Centre for Evangelism & Global Mission at Morling Theological College in Sydney, speaks to authenticity as bringing a "living among them" type of Christianity rather than cross-cultural absolutes regarding salvation and conduct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YaXbkD1sgs&eurl=http://missiodeiscandia.wordpress.com/category/emerging-church/. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
42. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008),97-111.
43. ^ M Percy, The Salt of the Earth: Religious resilience in a Secular Age, (London, Continuum, 2002), 165.
44. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 113-132.
45. ^ Griffiths, Rev Dr. Steve (2007-01-30). "An Incarnational Missiology for the Emerging Church". Rev Dr. Steve Griffiths speaks about the Emerging Church and how they view and approach missions. http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1116. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
46. ^ SB Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, New York:Orbis, 2002),3-46.
47. ^ SB Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, New York:Orbis, 2002),81-96.
48. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007),28-9.
49. ^ BA Harvey, Another City, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 14.
50. ^ SB Bevans, Contextual Theology, (New York:Orbis, 2002),1.
51. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 67-82.
52. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 28-32.
53. ^ "Notes of John Franke at the Emerging Church Forum". 2006. http://weblog.wyclif.net/index.php/2006/10/28/notes-from-the-emerging-church-forum-john-franke/. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
54. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTCPress, 2008), 65-82.
55. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 30-1.
56. ^ and a significant number of emerging church proponents remain in denominationally identified communities. There is also a significant presence within the movement that remains within traditional denominational structures. (Missional) "Emergent Village: Values and Practices". http://www.emergentvillage.org/about-information/values-and-practices. Retrieved 2006-08-09.
57. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church, (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Ltd, 1991).
58. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 54-5.
59. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1991) 46
60. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church, 50-1.
61. ^ Webber, Robert, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Karen M. Ward, and Mark Driscoll. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007) Appendix 2
62. ^ E Davis, Techgnosis, (London:Serpents Tail, 2004).
63. ^ J Caputo, On Religion, (London:Routledge, 2001).
64. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007), Chapter Two and Three.
65. ^ Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2008), 14-15.
66. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 83-96.
67. ^ Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2008), 96-102.
68. ^ See http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_9495041
69. ^ "Brian McLaren in Africa". http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/imported/reflections-on-amahoroafrica-may.html.
70. ^ "Brian McLaren everything must change". http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0849901839.
71. ^ Brian McLaren "Church Emerging: Or Why I Still Use the Word Postmodern But with Mixed Feelings" in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope eds. Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), 141ff. ISBN 0801071569