Emerging Questions: Are We Doing It?
Feb 12th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 6 Comments |
I have a new article up at Next-Wave Ezine. You can read it here.
Background:
The terms “Emerging” or “Emergent” “Church”/”Movement”/”Conversation” refer to a new effort in American Christianity to work out what Christianity means for postmodernity.
It centers around the writing and thinking of Brian McLaren, though there are other foci (e.g., Scot McKnight and Jim Wallis). Politically and socially it tends to be liberal/progressive.
For an academic-though-popular explication of Postmodernism and how it could relate to Christianity, see Crystal Downing’s How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith. I don’t know if Dr. Downing is involved in things Emergent or not, but the book is good introduction to the issue.
Ah, the Emergent church….
I’ve read both McLaren and Wallis. I think the movement raises some important questions regarding the role of the Christian in the world, but it’s their answers that leave many fundamentalist Christians (such as myself) feeling beaten over the head (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly).
I think a major problem with emergent thinking is that it seems to have swung too far to the other side (and this side isn’t inherently bad) in their attempt to get away from fundamentalism. McLaren, in my view, specifically seems to neglect the Gospel in favor of social justice. I think Christians need to focus on both.
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
People should read more Hegel, perhaps. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
I think for a lot of progressive Christians, the Gospel is social justice. They need Christianity to be relevant to their everyday lives, as opposed to just giving them a hope for the next.
The question about what the Gospel is depends on what the Kingdom of Heaven/God is, since the coming of the latter seems to be the “good news” Jesus was preaching (Mat. 4.23, 9.35; Mark 1.15; Luke 4.43, 8.1, 16.16).
It disturbs me, though, that this late in the game there are still arguments about what the Gospel is.
I actually think it’s great and healthy that we’re still working this out. But it seems like you’re pretty clear on the issue. So I’ll bite.
What is the Kingdom of Heaven/God?
I wish I was clear on the issue.
My theory, however, is that the Kingdom of God is Religion (in the etymological sense of “re-connection”). Jesus came to make it possible for humanity to be “participants in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4, NRSV).
And since humanity is the bridge between the divine and the universe (cf. Augustine, Plotinus) this has the possibility of changing the physical world as well.
UPDATED
Removed parenthetical remark which made sentence say something I didn’t want it to say. That’s what happens when you write sentences in stages and then don’t double-check that the whole makes sense.
I think I’m with you…
But as I think about the accusations of folks and the Social Gospel, I’m starting to wonder if there’s a way to put it that’s more fair to the emergents.
I think a fundamental question is “How role do we have in bringing about the kingdom?”
I think emergents tend to focus on the idea that Christ in us will do lots of work through us. I think traditionalists/moderns tend to see this as God doing much more work outside of us… These folks therefore, get focused on a sudden transition, which leads sometimes to all sorts of hypothesizing about meanings in Revelations.
I found the book “This Beautiful Mess” To be quite illuminating on the subject, though I too am still working this all out.
Opps. “How rule do we play” isn’t a fundamental question. It’s just poor syntax. “WHAT role do we play” is the fundamental question.