The conversation we had started out with someone mentioning the book Why We're Not Emergent: from two guys who should be
by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung I suggested my own critique of the book, summarizing that I thought - like most critiques of the emergent church - it was unbalanced and unfair. I know Kevin DeYoung, and appreciate him. In fact, we're in the same "Classis" (that's presytery for your presbyterians) and he now serves the church where I original found Christ and was discipled. Anyway... I suggested that one of my great frustrations was that the book often used older books, quotes, and periphery issues to take what I would consider were unfair pot-shots at this movement. Now, of course, late 1990's and early 2000's isn't old, but in terms of the Emergent Movement
it is. In fact, take a look at this googletrends graph that shows searches starting only in 2004.
There has been a lot of change and development in recent years and quick dismissals over old or careless statements doesn't represent the movement as a whole. Now, hear me carefully... I wouldn't consider myself a member of Emergent, even if I am very sympathetic to many of their thoughts and ideas. I do love the conversation and I think some helpful things have come out of it. Anyway...
One of the things we really began talking about was what reform was needed in the church and what real reform was happening. It's my contention that Emergent is a renewal movement within the church, some of the renewal is good and biblical, some of it is headed, in my view, in the wrong direction.
Remember my friends concern "I just don't want to lose or let go of things that are important," To which I retorted something like, "I don't want to hold onto things that aren't essential."
In this sense, I can be accused of being a liberal. Why? Because to be conservative in many ways means to preserve the past or the status quo, being liberal means to be more open to modification and change. If we're just talking about form here, I'm certainly a liberal. But content that lines up in one or the other category (liberal or conservative) - well, that's a little trickier. With regards to theology, I'm quite conservative, depending on the area of theology we're talking about. This brings me to an important question about the appropriate stance for Christians, or are there different stances or postures for different times and issues? Many of you know my passion for cultural engagement and transforming culture. It's hard to do that from a conservative stance or posture. Not impossible, just harder, and I suppose we have to ask ourselves for what end? For what end are we preserving the past or the status quo? For what end might we consider change, innovation, or creativity? How do these ends or how does the telos of our faith and the identity and mission of the church define whether we are to be (culturally, liturgically) conservative or liberal? And is it possible to be a theologically conservative cultural liberal or a theologically liberal cultural conservative? Sure it is. I can give you a number of examples. Many of my friends, though, fall into one of four camps:
- Theologically and culturally conservative
- Theologically conservative but culturally liberal
- Theologically liberal but culturally conservative
- Theologically and culturally liberal
I find a lot of people in camps 1, 3, and 4, but not as many in category 2 - theologically conservative cultural liberals. In fact, in my own denomination, I would say that there is a tension right now between group 1 and a group comprised of 3 & 4. There are some of us (and I would consider myself in this category) in group 2 who a) tend to be more socially related to group 1, because we were often birthed from them and are often labelled by groups 3 & 4 as in group 1. However, what the 1's don't often realize is that we share (much of) their theology - which is generally their higher concern and the 3's and 4's don't recognize that we share (much of) their cultural liberality - which is generally their higher concern. Are you tracking with me? I really think this is what Roger Olson is getting at in many of his recent books (cf. my page on Books I've Recently Read
) as well as Joel Edwards
(cf. my page on What I'm Reading
). I think it's what some people have been trying to get at with words like postconservative, postevangelical, postliberal, and others.
Mark Driscoll (who I often disagree with) would put himself in category 2 as well (although we might have different things on our lists theologically and culturally... in fact, I know that's the case). He has a great analogy of one hand open (culturally) and one hand closed (theologically). The difficulty comes, I suppose, when we begin to ask questions about the closed hand, what belongs in the closed hand, how much or how little, etc. I think my friend was afraid that I was willing to mess with too many things in the closed hand, and I was afraid he wanted some things in the closed hand that shouldn't be there. Maybe, maybe not.
Again, it goes back to that wonderful phrase attributed to many, but I think it was Wesley who said it: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty." In all things, charity. (I read somewhere recently that this was attributed to Wesley, but inaccurately.) The question, though, is what are the essentials and non-essentials? That may be where we disagree. However, the problem is usually not whether we agree with what the essentials are (at least among my friends) but rather how open we are to change or let go of things we really like that are non-essentials, or whether we're willing or not (or should be) to discuss the essentials. That's the hard part - in the church our tendency is to hold on to things that aren't essential with not only incredible tenacity, but with violent response to loss, heart-wrenching division, and words of anathema for those who dare ask us to change.
Well... enough in this post. I'll continue this conversation in the next couple of posts.