Emerging Essentials
Monday, May 5, 2008 at 11:23AM In Why We're Not Emerging, Kevin DeYoung writes:
If the emerging church struggles to find a theological center, it struggles even more to define theological boundaries - not just what they are, but whether any exist...
The question is whether the emerging church has the ability to correct its own abuses and challenge the massive theological errors coming from fellow conversation partners. More importantly, the question is whether the emerging church even has the category of theological error. Some do, but many, I fear, do not. As long as we try to live out justice as Jesus modeled and love in community as Jesus taught, that's all that really matters - if the emerging church refuses to stand for more than this, it will quickly lose any semblance of being evangelical, any semblance of being historically orthodox, and eventually any sense of being decidedly Christian.
What do you think of DeYoung's question? Does the emerging church have a category of theological error? This is an honest question. I don't want an attack on the emerging church here; I'd prefer to get an answer from someone who considers themselves to be emerging.
Reader Comments (6)
Darryl, I think the suggestion that those of us who identify as "emerging" or "emergent" have no category of "theological error" is ridiculous, and here's why: The emerging church has been born out of the deep conviction that there has been theological error -- namely, a "Left Behind" eschatology that leaves us unconcerned about God's creation and the injustice that is occurring in our day and time, a narrow view of the atonement that leaves Christians wanting Jesus but only for his blood (to quote Dallas Willard), which leads to an evangelistic emphasis focused primarily on "praying the prayer" and getting people into Heaven after they die (but with very little discipleship for living as a follower of Jesus in the here and now), a lack of concern for systemic injustices inside and outside of the church (e.g., racism, sexism, consumerism, etc.), an overconfidence in our ability to know Truth that leads to an intellectual arrogance and divisiveness that splits churches and turns off non-Christians from wanting to have anything to do with Christianity. Those are just some of the major theological errors that the emerging church has been raising and attempting to address. Do you see why I think that suggestion is just plain ludicrous? But I do understand why Kluck and DeYoung (and others) would be confused. Emergents (like myself) hold our beliefs differently. That's all. Yes, we have beliefs, we have boundaries, etc., but our approach to addressing those things is relational, (hopefully) gracious, (hopefully) loving, (hopefully) in a spirit of unity. While others want to stake their claim on certainty, I am happy to have my "proper confidence" (as Newbigin says) and try to live faithfully. Is it a "slippery slope"? Sure it is. Thank God I have the Bible, the great cloud of witnesses (past and present), and the Holy Spirit to guide me! And I would say my "slippery slope" is no more slippery than the one of hyperconfidence in a rigid systematic theology that draws stark black and white lines around people and beliefs. Somewhere there is a good balance. May we all seek to find it together and not shoot each other in process. The world is watching.
Hi Steve, Thanks for this. I resonate with a lot of this - both the concerns expressed and the relational, gracious approach, as well as proper confidence vs. overconfidence. Tony Jones has been quoted as saying, "The very nature of theology is one of conversation and dialogue, not one of setting boundaries and safeguards from elusive historic orthodoxy." I guess I would ask if it's right to draw black and white lines or draw boundaries about something like the resurrection, for instance? Not in terms of shutting down dialogue, but in terms of having confidence that it is true, and even essential to believe that it is true.
That's a good (and fair) follow-up question, Darryl. I think I would again affirm that there are boundaries. You could ask me about any number of theological questions (e.g., the resurrection), and I would give you my humble, honest, God-fearing "This is what I believe, this is what I am putting my faith and confidence in" answer. I think what you're really driving at, though, is the age-old question, "What must a person do to be 'saved'?" Or how would I do evangelism then, from this postmodern, post-foundational theological place. And I think the simple answer I would give is that it probably has less to do with giving intellectual assent to a certain set of propositional truth statements than we think it does -- or, at least, what our evangelistic practice has focused on in recent decades. But before jumping to conclusions, keep in mind that I'm not denying or discarding propositional truths. Everything is based on propositions, right? I think the emphasis should simply be on love, friendship, relationship, and inviting people to follow God in the way of Jesus. And when we put doctrine ahead of discipleship (calling people to be Jesus' disciples), then we've got the cart before the horse.
Thanks, Steve. When I read the New Testament I find room for discussion on some issues. But there seem to some about which there is no question. The command is to believe them, teach them, refute those who don't hold them. There is such a thing called sound doctrine or a set of core beliefs or propositions. Some have taken this overboard, and I certainly want to avoid the mistake of excessive dogmatism or focus on doctrine at the expense of love. But I think there is danger in going the other route and being unnecessarily unsure of some doctrines. Humility does not equal uncertainty. I'm not so much asking what doctrinal knowledge it takes to be saved. I'm not even asking if my emerging friends have doctrines they hold to. I guess I'm asking that if I wrote a book that denied that Jesus rose again, for instance, could my emerging friends read the book and say it's objectively wrong? My sense - and I could be wrong - is that many in the emerging church could say that child slavery is wrong, which is absolutely true, but would have a much harder time being dogmatic about an issue like the resurrection or deity of Christ. I could be wrong. Let me know what you think. Thanks, by the way, for helping me out here. I appreciate you engaging this issue.
My sense, Darryl, is that I -- and most of the people I know in Emergent and the broader emerging church conversation -- would absolutely uphold the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection. That's the vast majority of people. There will always be a small group of people (who self-identify with Emergent) out there on the fringe, and if you asked me to endorse your book denying Christ's deity, I wouldn't do it -- but I would still call you my friend. And that's a fundamental difference, I think between emergents and other evangelicals/fundamentalists/etc.: Disagreement doesn't mean I have disown a person. I think others take a much more rigid approach to "church discipline" and keeping the "wolves" from attacking the "sheep." But the model I follow from Scripture is Jesus who tells his disciples that whoever is not against him is for him. And Jesus who tells the parable of the wheat and the tares and says to let both of them grow together until the harvest at the end of the world, when it will be the angels (at God's command) separating them (not human beings). That's my basis for separating theological/doctrinal difference from friendship/love/grace. I think the passages of Scripture that lay out these really strict rules of protecting "sound doctrine" are contextual, i.e., Paul writing to a specific early church in a specific place dealing with a specific issue of theology or practice. To take those statements off the page and try to apply them broadly in our context is really a tricky (and often misguided) thing. I'm glad to have this dialogue with you, Darryl. I'm enjoying it. Let's keep talking!
I think that there are definitely lines and there is a category for theological error, but I think there are usually not lines placed around "non-essentials" (though, of course many disagree with what many emergent or emerging Christians consider "non-essential). I still think a lot of fear is drawn from how uncomfortable some are with all the questions they ask. Many people will say they are ok with questions, as long as the person comes back to what those people think is the truth - they are not ok if they come out with different answers. But why zone in on these groups of people? Many Calvinists would be appalled at the idea of one of their own becoming Armenian or Wesleyan, and vise versa. Isn't that in some ways just as drastic? Sure, there are emerging people that are questioning orthodox history (creeds, etc.), but they are a minority - and mostly emergent (a small part of the emergents) - most emerging Christians that I know and read of are trying to get back to what they see as historic/orthodox Christianity. Which means they see what they would call theological errors in some of the current church (like someone above said). Now so might disagree with them in what historic/orthodox Christianity is, but that is an entirely different matter.