The Emerging Church, by their own admission, is purposeful in having "fuzzy" definitions. [WARNING: 2Cor. 4:2] Their approach is "built on the assumption that postmodernism has effected such a gigantic and irreversible shift in people's thought patterns that the church is faced with a fundamental choice: adapt so as to respond better to postmodernism, or be relegated to irrelevance." Postmodernism believes there is no overriding Truth, that unless one is completely omniscient (which none of us are) one cannot know ANY Truth, only "individualized truths" particular to each person. There are "hard" Postmodernists and "soft" Postmodernists, depending how far one wishes to go in this line of thinking (which has strong undertones of Eastern philosophy, btw).
Now, to me, the proper response to Postmodernism is the Truth of God's revelation in His Word, NOT adopting a worldly Postmodern approach! If everyone is "in error" (from God's POV, as revealed in His Word), you do NOT also become "in error" in order to approach the lost more effectively! This has a decidedly Arminian world view. The Bible teaches that God chooses, God effects - it doesn't matter WHAT you thought before, when God regenerates a man, he receives spiritual life and responds to God in faith. [This reminds me of 1Cor.1-3, where the regenerated Corinthians tried to base their thinking and actions on the inferior knowledge of Greek sophia/wisdom, instead of the superior sophia/wisdom of God they already possessed as believers!] It's true that none of us, as humans, has omniscient knowledge, but God does...and He has given His revelation to us.
The Emerging Church stresses "forms" of worship [Menu-style, "pick and choose": robes, liturgy, candles, "personal narrative" journaling, Eastern-style meditation, icons, etc. Pretty much everything the Reformation fought to cleanse the church of!] and steers away from metanarrative - doctrinal Truths. [Brian MacLaren, a prominent writer for the movement, wrote that the Doctrine of the Atonement was "cosmic child abuse".] The focus of the movement appears to be the "worship experience" of the Individual, with a Postmodern capital "I", rather than on the Object of our worship. I am reminded of God's attitude towards those who worship Him in the manner THEY choose, rather than in the manner HE chooses. There can be NO real "worship" without Truth. [John 4:23-24; Rom 1:18; Rom 2:8]
Now lets look at the Puritan POV. John Owen wrote, "Pin not your faith upon men's opinions, the Bible is the touchstone." Ryken writes, "The Puritans' line of reasoning on biblical authority is impeccable: if God is the author of Scripture, it cannot lie, and if it does not deceive, it must be inerrant and infallible." (in reference to the original autographs)
They also believed in the Perspicuity of Scripture: John Milton wrote, "The very essence of Truth is plainness, and brightness...The Scriptures [protest] their own plainness and perspicuity, calling to them to be instructed, not only the wise and learned, but the simple, the poor, the babes." John Lightfoot wrote, "The foundation of the true church of God is Scripture." The preface to the Geneva Bible reads: The Bible "is the light to our paths, the key of the kingdom of heaven, our comfort in affliction, our shield and sword against Satan, the school of all wisdom, the glass wherein we behold God's face, the testimony of his favor, and the only food and nourishment of our souls."
"The Protestant Reformation, whether Continental or Puritan, stood for a word-based piety. Beginning with a conviction that the Bible was where a person encountered God most directly...The Puritans expected the verbal imagination to do the work that Catholic/Anglican worship had placed on the visual and aural imagination." The Puritans had a passion for doctrinal Truth. They expected worship to include an appeal to the understanding. They were especially preoccupied with religious Truth because they lived in an age of religious upheaval and doctrinal controversy. Is it any different today?
The Emerging Church promotes a preaching style of "story-telling" and "personal narratives". The Puritans were jailed and died over the right to preach God's Word! When Puritan preaching became popular in England, the Anglican establishment made numerous attempts to limit the role of preaching in the worship service. And now, the "newest", the "latest" type of worship being promoted by the Emerging Church is, in fact, actually going backwards to that erroneous form of "worship"!
Forgive the length of this post, but I think this is an important issue that most believers, at least on the East Coast, are unfamiliar with. We need to be thinking about these things, instead of being so anxious to "meet people's needs" (read: emotional; as opposed to their REAL need: spiritual), "increase our numbers", offering forms of worship that aid people in having a "personally valid experience". So be paying attention as the Christian book industry promotes these books and "everyone" at church is talking about them and thinking they're full of "good ideas".
I leave you with the words of the Puritan, Richard Greenham, "The more ceremonies, the less truth."
3 comments:
I've written a few info pages outlining Modernism, Postmodernism and the Emerging Church. If this is new to you and you'd like to see them, just email me...or ask here in "Comments".
Deb,
In your studies, have you come across any differences in the terms "emergent church" and "emerging church"? I've seen a few sources that assign different attributes to the the two terms and was wondering if you had come across the same thing. I've come to identify myself with one of them, but I'll leave you in suspense as to which.
Ian
I haven't come across "emergent church", but they ought to consider another designation - I can see the possibility of major confusion and their being mistakenly identified with "the emerging church"...not a good thing! I guess that leads back to Loren's advice to try to steer clear of using specific terms/labels because they can carry such different meanings for different people (eg. "fundamental" can mean a lot of different things!!)
Tim is probably more familiar with what you're talking about. But I think he's too busy to even read my blog these days. I get a lot of info from Seminary journals - I'll be sure to pay attention to the use of the two different terms. Thanks for the heads up.
Post a Comment