Ranting, Raving, and Blaming the World's Problems on the Emergent Movement

I subscribe to the Emergent Village podcast. It typically just annoys me and puts me in a bad mood...and, generally does everything that a good political debate does for my soul. For some reason I keep hitting the play button, though. Since, I've plowed through a couple episodes this week, I thought I'd share my disgruntled spirits. Maybe you'll end up thinking that the world is coming to its end as I do.

Before I get into ranting and raving, here are a couple quotes from one of the Emergent head honchos...Tony Jones***.

From: http://www.emergentvillage.com/podcast/aar-panel-part-1

"This is a message problem, this is not a method problem. The gospel has been gotten wrong and we need to start trying to get the gospel right."

"Listen...this is a thorough-going reconsideration of the gospel in America. This is about whole new ways of thinking. This is about epistemology...How do we reconsider the gospel and everything that goes along with it?"

"We were of the minds that everything should be up for consideration."

And, because I'm old fashioned a Bible verse:
Galatians 1:9
"As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (anathema)."

I'm not going to try to tackle the argument that Tony Jones is preaching a different gospel than the one preached in the Bible. I'm merely going back to the point I made last time I harped on the emergent movement...hopefully with more clarity this time. And, if I can boil things down to one question, I think it would be:
"Is the emergent conversation characterized by wisdom?" I think there are some red flags that many are paying little attention to.

For example, when the Bible is so clear about the consequences of tampering with the gospel...wouldn't wisdom lead a person to be cautious with statements such as "we've gotten the gospel wrong...thorough reconsideration of the gospel in America...everything should be up for consideration". I suppose there are some instances where these statements can be said legitimately...but, in my mind there are so few instances...that I cringe when I hear someone say these things without disclaimers.

But, as much as I'd like to give Tony the benefit of the doubt...it does seem as though the emergent troops are questioning everything. For example, inerrancy of the Bible, the doctrine of hell, penal substitution...virgin birth. It's no wonder that people argue that emergent is just a reworked liberalism.

One of the problems is that the "conversation" is packaged in a cleverly appealing way to evangelical minds. I'm quite comfortable agreeing with the emergent folks that most Christian grew up in fairly pathetic churches. It's easy to take pot-shots at these churches and get a reaction...and feel a commonality with someone. But, it's easy in the way that a dirty joke is easy...anybody can do it. Simply bonding over a shared problem isn't a guarantee that together you can beat the odds and find a better way.

More caution flags show up in the hyper-individualism of the relationship-friendly emergent church. As a good Protestant, I'm pretty individualistic myself...but, again, I think "wisdom" tells us to forsake tradition with great hesitancy and last resort. What's ironic about emergent is that the tradition from 100 years ago is meaningful to them...and the traditions of our parents are the death of the church. Along these lines, I think a small army of bloggers thinking together can form a very deceptive community in which you think you truly understand things...when in reality you are simply dumbing down Christianity in the same non-scholastic way that old-time fundamentalists are accused of doing. There is something to say for academic scholarship.

More red flags...lack of cultural diversity. A person can argue that most churches are racially segregated...and, they are, to their detriment. However, my church is still preaching the same gospel as the Korean church down the road...and the Afro-American church next to it. We have this is common.

...also, my least judgemental criticism of the emergent church is probably the inherent temporariness of it. Can a movement perpetually be in the process of moving/emerging/complaining about the entity that is inspiring their movement? Are they emerging into the very thing that they will emerge from again down the road? What's the goal? Where are they headed? Are these questions still fair in a postmodern's mind? If everything is up for grabs...then, where's the urgency stemming from?

It's only fair that I add my own disclaimer...the emergent/emerging church is growing (I have a hunch it's currently at its peak, I could be wrong, though). And, with the breadth of the movement I can't lump everyone who considers themselves to be emergent or emerging into the Tony Jones variety. There are some voices that I would find myself agreeing with for the most part. But, in an overarching sense, emergent is not something I would want to be associated with. It's good to ask questions and think things through, but there's a wise way to do it and a foolish way. ...it's my opinion that much of the emergent movement is heading about things in a foolish manner.

*** Tony Jones

"...often against people who are really onto something."

Read Tony Jones' post...in which (as in all emergent dialog) there a good vibe overpowered by an over-all sense of "something's not quite right here"...

http://tonyj.net/2007/11/06/daddy-whats-a-heretic

And, to quote Tony's blog...What is a heretic?
“It’s what someone says,” Mike told her, “when they’re trying to hurt and silence someone else. It’s been used a lot in history, and often against people who are really onto something.” (That’s a paraphrase. Mike said it better.)

Perhaps, "Mike" is on to something...maybe heretic isn't a bad word. Maybe gnosticism is a good thing, maybe Christ wasn't God...maybe the whole Trinity thing is a farce...perhaps Mary wasn't a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Or, maybe the word heretic is a sobering word...maybe a person should use the opportunity of being called a heretic to see if there's any chance that they've wandered into dangerous waters?

And, just to formalize my feelings...I think I'm officially tired of all things emergent. So what if they've given evangelicals some good questions that we've been missing over the years... I'm tired of them saying "I wonder what would happen if the Bible wasn't inspired" and then saying "I never said the Bible wasn't inspired". "I wonder...what if Mary wasn't a virgin?"..."Oh, I actually never said that Mary wasn't a virgin." This would potentially be tolerable if it wasn't followed up with "Why is everyone picking on me? I didn't do anything...look at these evangelicals...all they want to do is fight...join the emergent side...we're actually not a side, we're just the misunderstood folks who everyone is picking on."

I'm sure emergent-ism will pass soon...not soon enough for me, though.

Hebrews 5:11-14
About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.