Long-time GetReligion readers may remember that I have been, and remain, very confused about the meaning of the term “emerging church” and how it relates to that other confusing term “evangelical.” There was even a time, two years ago or thereabouts, when GetReligion.org was named one of the top weblogs linked to the “emerging church” movement. That struck me as most strange. It still does.
Whatever the term means, it is supposed to be linked to a kind of post-evangelical embrace of the nuances of postmodern reality, in an attempt to fuse ancient mysteries with contemporary questions without the certainties of orthodoxy or something like that.
The key figure — in part since his church is so close to the D.C. Beltway — is the Rev. Brian McLaren, an author who has a stunning ability to write thousands and thousands of words without betraying anything specific about where he stands on centuries of Christian faith and doctrine and how they apply to modern issues. That’s where — for a premodern, Orthodox Christian guy like me — the frustrations begin. The last thing journalists need to be doing right now is tossing around another loaded, yet almost totally undefined, term. I mean, imagine trying to write an “emerging church” entry for the Associated Press Stylebook.
Truth be told, the “emerging” people and more than a few other Protestants are trying to run away from that “evangelical” buzz word. That’s part of what is going on with the “Evangelical Manifesto” story right now. Click here for one report on that scene.
Anyway, Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press recently sat down with McLaren for a Q&A that captures some of my frustration with all of this.
It’s common to ask if the “emerging church” represents a move to the theological left and the assumption is that it does.
But that’s an old question. I want to know if the leaders of this movement believe that they are making a move toward ancient faith traditions or simply another attempt by modern people, or postmodern people, to create their own version of the faith that tries to get back to what they believe the early church was all about. This is a recurring theme in American religion for 200 years or so.
Thus, Zoll writes:
Author Brian McLaren is among the most influential American religious thinkers of the last decade. His break with rigid orthodoxy and embrace of new worship styles is at the center of what is called the emerging church — a movement that has gone viral. The emerging church reclaims ancient practices and prayers and creates new ones, while re-examining Scripture to learn how modern-day Christians should live. …
Emerging thinkers contend that evangelicals and others have been too influenced by the broader culture in their reading of Scripture. The emerging church says this has marginalized important Bible teachings and hurt the faith.
See what I mean? This is modern worship that breaks with rigid orthodoxy of the past while reclaiming ancient practices to create a fusion for modernists. To me, that sounds like three parts modern with one part ancient and the postmodernists get to create all the equations that matter, when it comes to authority.
Later, in the interview, there is this exchange:
Q: On the theology behind the emerging church, you reject the idea that there’s an absolute truth. So what boundaries are there on theology that churches are teaching? Can any church just call itself an emerging church?
A: Obviously that’s a challenge. The flip side of that question is look at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran. … Obviously, I have a lot of critics and they often say, ‘You’re wanting to water down the Gospel to accommodate to post-modernity.’ I say, ‘No, I really don’t want to do that. But what I do want to do is acknowledge first the ways we’ve already watered down the Gospel to accommodate modernity.’ … I think the naivete of some of those critics is that they’re starting with a pure pristine understanding of the Gospel. It seems to me we’re all in danger of screwing up.
So, no absolute truths? I don’t see a clear answer there, especially not for a minister who is so concerned about social justice. Also, if you are seeking ancient roots, does that include the Nicene Creed? Are creedal absolutes tossed out, too?
You know where I am going with this, right? I think someone — a journalist perhaps — needs to ask this man three specific questions. Cue up the “tmatt trio,” again:
(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?
(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)?
(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?
So read the Zoll interview, you journalists out there. What questions would you have wanted to ask?
 | Posted at 7:16 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (21) |
May 11, 2008, at 12:32 pm
It slices! It dices! It makes Julienne fries! There’s nothing that emerging church can’t do.
Why bother? Like a politician, McLaren doesn’t give direct answers to difficult questions. He’s do busy positioning his so-called emerging church against the straw-man “evangelical church” that he can’t be bothered with actually defining and positioning his own church. As a marketer, I find his marketing effort an extremely lazy one. It’s easier to throw out buzzwords like “paradigm” and “systemic injustice” and to speak in generalities than to take a true leadership role. He apparently prefers to be the spokesman than the leader.
It’s all good. Don’t hassle me with your trio.
May 11, 2008, at 12:38 pm
The semantics of “emerging” vs “emergent” are unfortunately lost on this article. Typically, those in the “emergent” camp would hold to the ideas like McLaren, that there is no absolute truth, all orthodox thought needs to be re-examined and re-evaluated. People like Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones would be in this camp. Christianity Today has a series of discussions on its website between Jones and Colin Hansen - Emergent’s New Christians and the Young, Restless Reformed
“Emerging” is a much looser classification, referring more to expression and methods of contextualizing while still holding to orthodox Christian truth. Mark Driscoll, of Mars Hill Seattle, has put himself in this group.
Check out the diagram available on this post for a less-than-scientific, but helpful overview of Emerging vs. Emergent
May 11, 2008, at 12:42 pm
“Emerging thinkers contend that evangelicals and others have been too influenced by the broader culture in their reading of Scripture.”
That has me really confused, because what does it mean? It could mean (1) ‘Evangelicals’ (whomever they may be) and these mysterious ‘Others’ (again, whomever they may be) have taken their cues from the world around them and, instead of presenting the Scriptures to the culture, have chopped and changed according to the Zeitgeist BUT it could equally mean (2) “Evangelicals and others” have NOT accommodated themselves to the needs of our modern world, but have instead used Scripture as a stick to beat the culture with, arising out of an out-moded interpretation of sin and the like; as though the church/Church/’church’/whatever were in danger of being corrupted by “the World, the Flesh and the Devil”. Get over yourself, old dudes, and realise that young people don’t care about sex/money/fame the way you do!
Me, I’m going with ‘the World, the Flesh and the Devil’ option as to what this verbiage could be trending towards, since Brian (I feel I can call him ‘Brian’, since we’re all post-modernists here) responds to a request for a definition of what he thinks might be a possible common thread in “Emerging Church” movement by a good, old-fashioned round of Catholic bashing.
In other words, it looks like that whatever kind of a beast this ‘Emerging Church movement’ animal is, it’s (1) American all the way through in a (2) refreshingly old-fashioned “No Popery Here!” Free Church style. That’s the *real* ‘ancient tradition’ they’re exhibiting in this piece. “Whatever we are, we’re not Papists!”
May 11, 2008, at 1:22 pm
This movement, and the coverage of it, reminds me of the 70s and the “Jesus Movement”: a youth-oriented, coming-of-age sort of movement, appropriating Christianity in ways that our parents couldn’t possibly understand, and, with any luck, disapprove. Casual dress, casual theology, occasionally casual morals, and a relatively liberal political viewpoint mark both movements. The coverage we got was not as fawning as that given McLaren, but it was respectful. After all, 20 something are, I understand, an important advertising demographic, so you don’t want to tick them off too much.
The Jesus movement and, it seems, the Emerging Church movement, both went off in different directions. Some of us old Jesus People went into true cult groups (Children of God comes to mind), a lot of us lost faith altogether, and a lot ended up in mainline churches. It seems to me this last group gravitated to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but since I ended up Catholic, my sample is skewed.
I must say, it’s scary that someone responsible for the cure of souls thinks that orthodoxy and sin can’t exist in the same church, or, for that matter, the same person. OTOH, as Martha points out, McLaren’s rhetoric serves an important ecclesial purpose.
May 11, 2008, at 6:40 pm
Unfortunately, Brian McLaren considers himself an “agnostic” regarding the Nicene Creed. One story in the Baptist Press takes him to task recently because of his comments in a recent conference at Willow Creek. A Willow Creek member named Tammy asked him outright if he affirms the Nicene Creed. Tammy recounted their interaction in the comments of an emerging blog. Scroll down to April 6 at 2:17 pm. Yet that’s not enough to consider McLaren an heretic.
God is good
jpu
May 11, 2008, at 8:14 pm
There are no absolute truths, but—
The Catholic Church “could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran.”
So are those things truly, really wrong? Or are they not really wrong at all, but perhaps someone just happens to think they’re wrong, and someone else doesn’t, and there’s really no way to judge (absolutely)?
Is this supposed to pass for intellectual discourse? As a journalist, I’d have wanted to ask the obvious.
May 11, 2008, at 8:28 pm
The Catholic Church “for all of its orthodoxy, could have bishops covering up for molesting priests.” Assuming that’s true (actually the more acurate and less perjorative charge is that certain bishops were not agressive enough in removing deviant priests from ministry), how is it an indictment of orthodoxy? Orthodox Catholicism does not teach that bishops are perfect human beings, free from any sin or fault. That said, if Catholicism is true it should bear good fruit. And, I would submit, it has, the sex abuse scandal notwithstanding.
May 11, 2008, at 9:02 pm
When McLaren talked about opposing unjust systems, I would have wanted to ask him how this differs from the Social Gospel.
When McLaren talked about bringing the world closer to “May thy will be done on earth…” I would have wanted to ask him how this differs in essence from those who want to eliminate abortion on earth or those who want to prevent gay marriage on earth.
When McLaren responded (quite reasonably) to the question of whether he rejected the label of liberal with a demand that one first define “liberal” I would would have wanted Zoll to be ready with a definition of “liberal” and pin McLaren down a bit on this one.
May 11, 2008, at 9:17 pm
Forget emerging — i want me one of those Orthodox Cubes! Sweeeeeet …
May 12, 2008, at 9:43 am
As the author, I have the same wariness of new religion that seems to be claiming to know God or the Gospels better than traditional religions. However, I’m also wary of traditional religions assuming that tradition is itself a Truth. Certainly, the Church is not just the People of God but a worldy institution.
McLaren’s point about the Catholic Church’s abuses makes sense to me NOT as a charge of hypocrisy against priests committing sins but as a charge against the abuses of an institution. In other words, I now have to wonder how much of the Truth handed down to me as a Roman Catholic is the Truth of God and how much are truths serving powerful men?
I don’t suppose my deconstructionist notion will get any traction here, and though many people have my same questions without using that word, you should be aware it arises from legitimate distrust. Authority has shown itself to be self-serving, and not just in the Catholic Church, of course, and not just because of the Abuse Scandal. The Sex Abuse and Cover Up were not a few isolated sins of the flesh.
Many Fundamentalist Christians claimed to be preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but many followers have begun to turn away from their churches, too, because the message seems to be serving something other than a loving, forgiving God.
As much as Pope Benedict XVI and other religious leaders have warned us about “moral relativism”, I can’t help but think modernity has given us so much with that ability to see a world without absolutes, if only because those absolutes are so often self-serving for those who claim to speak for God.
May 12, 2008, at 11:22 am
I think your three questions are spot on. If you want to know how McLaren would (or would not answer) your second question, check out his ‘A Reading of John 14:6’ at http://www.brianmclaren.net. McLaren does the same tap dancing act he does in the AP interview. Trying to get a straight answer from him is like trying to nail Jell-o to a wall. It’s nearly an impossible task.
May 12, 2008, at 12:35 pm
McLaren: “I believe we are all saved by grace through faith, not by correct belief”
Any thinking reporter would be ready to call McLaren out on this false dichotomy - after all, doesn’t “correct belief” specify how to direct that faith? And what means grace - who provides it, how and why?
McLaren: “The church must present the Christian faith not as one religious army at war with all other religious armies but as one of many religious armies fighting against evil, falsehood, destruction, darkness, and injustice.â€
Sounds nice on the surface, but as he’s so intentional in his postmodern resistance to absolute truth claims, a reporter could simply ask him to define “falsehood”.
May 12, 2008, at 12:52 pm
As I see it, there has been a strong pharisaical stream in the evangelical river. (Does anyone remember Bill Gothard and Basic Youth Conflicts?)
If so, I believe Brian McLaren represents the emerging Sadducean stream.
;-P
May 12, 2008, at 1:00 pm
i am with Jeff, where did you find that ‘orthodox rubik cube’ ??
actually, this is a helpful post about the emerging church…
Peter+
http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com
May 12, 2008, at 2:49 pm
A few thoughts…
1. There is absolute Truth
2. Our minds are finite.
3. Our grasp of ultimate Truth is therefore limited.
4. To claim that one has the Truth completely nailed down is to limit God to our finite understanding and thus idolatrous.
5. When we talk about God it is necessary to hold a certain humility.
6. What the emerging conversation/church is about is maintaining a stance of humility in HOW one holds one’s faith.
7. Further, one can be orthodox (= check off the right answers on the doctrinal list) and fail in orthopraxity (sp?)
8. What the world needs right now is “Jesus followers” even more than “Jesus admirers”
9. A “Jesus follower” does protest unjust systems. If you claim to know God, and yet do not love, you are a liar. If you tell your brother/sister, “God loves you” and fail to share your “daily bread,” then you are a liar.
Held in One Peace, Duh-sciple
May 12, 2008, at 7:11 pm
I struggled through MacLaren’s THE WORD AFTER LAST, fuming, “What a pity he never read Swedenborg, or he would not be wasting our time by flogging false alternatives.” But no, you have to be either just like him or a stupidnarrowmindedfundybigot, and those of use who do not fit HIS pigeonholes do not exist.
May 12, 2008, at 11:53 pm
McLaren offers nihilistic narcissism with a happy face. He doesn’t answer a question directly because he wants the answer to be totally under his control. To commit himself to an answer would mean that he would subject his answer to criticism, dialogue, rigorous analysis.
When asked about orthodoxy, he brings up pedophile priests, as if that has anything to do with orthodoxy. But it serves his purpose: he transports ugliness to his critics so that his audience is inclined not to look at their ideas. So, not only doesn’t he answer questions addressed to him, he engages in ad hominem attacks in order to diminish the stature of his critics and thus provides incentives for his audience not to ask questions to those with whom he disagrees. This is perverse.
McLaren is a bad teacher, for he nurtures in his students bad habits of thinking and bad habits of trying to understand others.
May 13, 2008, at 2:56 am
I would say that you are quick to criticize my friend Brian McLaren. He may not believe in ‘absolutes’ as modern epistemology would understand it, but that does not mean that he has abandoned truth all together. Many within the Emerging conversation have begun to realize that language of subjectivity vs. objectivity is to flawed. It is impossible for a human to come to understand anything as completely ‘objective’ because it is impossible to live in a vacuum and remove ourselves from our experiences. Take history for instance. The historian who records history, may attempt to be ‘objective’, but his or her perception of that so-called objectivity always has in it a hint of subjectivity.
Perhaps the best way to describe Truth for an Emergent would be what Walsh and Keesmaat (Subverting the Empire) describe as “Relational Truth.” Christianity cannot be fully experienced or embraced without an authentic encounter with the Relational God. Much more should be said on this point.
As far as what Emerging Christians would think of the Apostle’s Creed; well, we are drawn to it. Its formulation predates the final compilation of the canon, so it seems that the early church would have understood it as a summary of its beliefs. Now, where it becomes tricky is discerning how one chooses to interpret the various lines of the credal statement. That is entirely a different subject.
For a good so-called definition of Emerging Church, download Scot McKnight’s article “5 Streams of the Emerging Church.”
Also, if you enjoy discussion on this and other theological issues, please feel free to visit my blog: Groans From Within
May 13, 2008, at 10:37 am
Terry
I don’t know if those three questions will reveal much, since, as Scot McKnight points out, the emergent folks are less concerned with epistemology—how we know the truth—and more concerned with ecclesiology, or how to “do church.” I heard McClaren once describe the faith as more of a craft—like the art of making a violin—and less like a static set of beliefs.
I don’t think the TMatt Trio works as an effective test in his case.
May 13, 2008, at 12:31 pm
I’m sorry, I have major gripes with the wording of this “tmatt trio” that keeps appearing as a tool to separate the true conservatives from the true liberals. Point 1 is fine, but points 2 and 3 have major wording problems.
#2 asks in part: “Was Jesus being literal when he said, `I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”. Now, if the word “literal” were replaced with “correct” or “accurate” there would be no problem. The trouble is, “literal” doesn’t mean true, it means not using any metaphors or symbolism. Using the word “literal” to mean “really” ruins the original, useful meaning of the word and replaces it with a meaning we have lots of other good words for, which is why C.S. Lewis called it a “vile journalistic cliche”.
A literal way is a road, a path, or a street. A literal truth is a propositional statement that corresponds to reality. Literal life means the biochemical processes in a plant or animal that keep them from being physically dead.
No one belives this about Jesus. Not the most diehard fundamentalist believes that Jesus is a Way in the same ordinary normal sense that “51st Ave” is a way.
#3 refers to the “Sacrament of Marriage”. Now some protestant churches teach that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and Communion. Others don’t like to use the term Sacrament at all, believing that it is associated with superstitious teachings, and prefer terms like Ordinance. I don’t agree with either group, but both groups include very conservative people who would definitely believe that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. So #3 seems like the wrong thing to ask except to a person in a tradition where the meaning of the word “Sacrament” is already agreed upon.
May 13, 2008, at 2:44 pm
Well, I think they are revealing, because evasiveness of answering is revealing, and particularly so for the first question.
I commend to everyone this interview for the late (and at least by me lamented) New Pantagruel. The interviewer, Dan Krauss, does a good job of trying to pin McLaren down without being confrontational about it. And it’s plain that the latter does not want to be pinned down, in many cases. Neither does his church’s website: for instance, after all these years it still avoids picturing the sanctuary, though they love to show that barn and all the empty land behind.
I have a problem with the phrase “rigid orthodoxy” in the lead-in, but it also struck me that, after McLaren essentially dismissed Catholic theology on the basis of the pedophile priest crisis, Zoll gives him an easy pitch by asking him about the movement’s “weaknesses”, when it strikes me in juxtaposition that she should have asked him to list the movements’ sins. It also strikes me, however, that journalism— probably even Christian journalism— is really not capable at getting a grip on this thing. I mean, there’s a definite level (and often an excessive level) of not-pinned-down-ness in Anglicanism; but it’s really pretty hard to compare the two, as it stands. It would be especially illuminating to put a really smart Anglican— say, N. T. Wright— with McLaren and record the discussion.