emergent

http://gatheringinlight.com/2008/01/13/the-four-models-of-emerging-churches/

the above article is by a guy called C. Wess Daniels, who gives a brief description of the four general 'emergent' strands that have 'emerged' in the past few years in church circles..

i must admit to having a mixed view of the whole emerging/emergent church movement (or 'conversation' or whatever non-dogmatic term you want to use).. on the one hand i can see a need for 'doing' church in the face our so-called postmodern society/culture in fresh ways.. on the other hand i pretty much can't stand (or even really understand the point of) theological liberalism and the soppy political liberalism that often goes with it, especially the sort that uses Jesus as some kind of proto-hippie who, to paraphrase Mark Driscoll, wears a dress and has peroxide in his hair.. alot of the emerging church appears to be such a theological and political liberalism just dressed up in a new package.. it also often seems to be Christian kids rebelling against their evangelical/religious right parents and trying to be 'relevant' to the culture they live in.. but lets face it they're very often not, no matter what they do.. i haven't read up as much as i'd like on many of the strands but, of the four movements he mentions, i think i'd lean more towards the fourth - the Driscoll/missional thing.. for me the first (Brian McLaren/postmodern theology) is way off target - it seems to compromise too much with the culture.. the second (what appears to be the so-called 'Radical Orthodoxy') looks quite interesting but, again, i haven't read anything much by the theologians behind it (i.e. James K.A. Smith) - though the little i have read seems highly abstract and arcane (but hey after Hegel nothing can be that bad eh?).. and the third seems to be more for left wing Christian hippies (i.e. Shane Claiborne/the New Monastics), which unfortunately i'm not one of (can't imagine driving a bus run on vegetable oil anytime soon) - though i can understand the pull of a more contemplative Christian life (which explains why figures like Dallas Willard are becoming increasingly popular in the movement)..

a second article is from Christianity Today and is written by New Testament theologian Scot McKnight:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html

this article is overall less descriptive, though there is alot of that, and more supportive of the movement as a whole.. he outlines some of the aspects which identify 'emergent' - one of which is to be poilitically left leaning.. again i think this is because of a conscious rebellion against the Christian Right stance of many of the emergent kids' parents - either that or it just seems abit more hip and cool to be a left winger these days.. i think this is generally one of the reasons why alot of Christians are becoming more and more anti-Israel (and anti-America and anti-capitalist etc.) - because its part of the left wing position to be so and the left wing position has almost become the default cultural position for 'sophisticated' and 'intelligent' people (at least it has in post-Christian, seculaist/socialist Europe and a good portion of the States too)..
he also says that one thing Evangelicals are wary of is the fact that emergents often do theology as postmoderns rather than with or to postmoderns (which they also do and which is perfectly fine).. the part about worship and the questions it asks is also interesting.. is the sermon the most important thing on a Sunday? i would answer probably yes but i think fellowship is also highly important as well as worship.. i like the part about our deeds being as important as our theology which, it's true, alot of Christians forget, despite paying lip service to (which i'm often guilty of myself).. the section on missional living is also good, if brief.. then there's the bit on being 'post-evangelical' (where did all this 'post' crap come from? i first heard it with post-rock, then every music genre became 'post', then postmodern this and that, now post-postmodern.. when will it end?)..
to quote McKnight here at length:

'Post-systematic theology: The emerging movement tends to be suspicious of systematic theology. Why? Not because we don't read systematics, but because the diversity of theologies alarms us, no genuine consensus has been achieved, God didn't reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative, and no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God. Frankly, the emerging movement loves ideas and theology. It just doesn't have an airtight system or statement of faith. We believe the Great Tradition offers various ways for telling the truth about God's redemption in Christ, but we don't believe any one theology gets it absolutely right.'

i'd generally agree with this at the minute.. i was thinking the other day that the more theology i've come across the more i've taken parts from some and mixed it with parts from others, without every wholly agreeing with one theologian or theological position (for instance i've been heavily influenced by Reformed theology, Jewish Roots, premillennialism, the pentecostal/charismatic movement, philosophy of religion etc. without holding up one of them and saying theyve got it all spot on).. the only thing i'd say here is that i dont believe this means we can't and shouldn't agree on some fundamentals of the faith which it is pivitol for a Christian to believe i.e. the obvious ones like the Trinity, the Incarnation, penal substitution etc. (i.e. the doctrines that basically seperate Christianity from any other world-faith)..

the part about in-versus-out is where McKnight seems to become critical of the emergent movement i.e. the universalism some of its followers adhere to.. McKnight also has a warning for the emergent's left-leaning political position i.e. not to forget the spiritual gospel at the expense of the social gospel, as many liberals once did..

again, because i'd like to remain both politically and theologically conservative whilst remaining conscious of the fact the gospel needs to be contextualized for a postmodern culture, i'm more drawn to the missional/Driscoll model than the other three outlined by Daniels in the first article..

and again, overall, i'm still mixed about the movement as a whole but its obvious that it is a multi-faceted thing, much like Christianity itself, and can't be generalized as some monolithic entity with such and such characteristics.. i think there are aspects to be wary of but also some potentially interesting ideas.. as McKnight observes at the end of his article it seems like emergent movement will leave its mark on evangelicalism somehow or other, much as the Charismatic and Jesus People movements did in the 60's.. hopefully i'll post some more about this topic in the future..