A New Kind of Christianity with a New Kind of Christian: Exploring the Emergent Church: Part II

We were introduced to The New Christians (TNC) and its author, Tony Jones, in our first post. Since 2001, "emergent" (EC) has been the official self-designation and preferred socio-religious title to this movement within the church.  We continue our review with looking briefly at chapter one entiled, "Leaving The Old Country" (pp.1-30).

Jones' writing style is very interesting.  He soaks the pages of his book with a never ending reservoir of personal stories and experiences that captivate his audience.   

In fact, styles of communication stand a staple of EC.  For them, gone forever are the outdated modes of deductive/inductive approaches to communication.  Deductive structure begins with a universal and descends to the particular whereas inductive communication begins with particulars, wiggling its way to the over-arching truth. 

Instead, EC authors Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer offer a third way--the way of EC--abductive structure.  They write:

"[The Abductive method] seizes people by the imagination and transports them from their current world to another world, where they gain a new perspective" (The Language of The Emerging Church, Zondervan, 2003, p.31).  

This new communication practice is so revolutionary, they say, that some are calling it, when put into practice in the pulpit, "post-homiletical discourses".  The point of this practice is to build the communication process around experience rather than a person's current assumptions and/or worldview. 

In other words, rather than string your readers/hearers along with step-by-step, logical, predictable arguments, making a case as would a lawyer, for example, "grab them by the scuff of the neck (their imagination) and throw them into something they never expected" (p.32). This is accomplished by pointless unpredictability through disorientation, amazement, surprise, metaphor, problem solving, or a shocking experience.

I make that point to say, reading Jones book is not at all unlike the "abduction method" of the other EC authors.  Story after story is built within the framework, sometimes where it seems odd to be.  Well, enough on literary style.

Indicative of chapter one's title, Jones makes haste to get out of the old country, which, I suppose, is a metaphor for the denominational church.  The malady for which America seems infected is not the old standby secularism.  Nor is it relativism or even materialism.  Instead, it is not that we are becoming less religious.  To the contrary, "we are becoming differently religious.  And the shift is significant" (p.2, italics original).

Indeed, American Christians pathetically lack any level of commitment to the church.  American Christians do not appreciate the denominational divides that plague most seminary graduates (p.3). Those divides are indicative of a deeper problem still.  For though it was Friedrich Nietzsche who first proclaimed the death of God in the 19th century, a death which Time magazine echoed in the 20th century, for Jones, "In the twenty-first century, it's not God who's dead.  It's the church" (p.4). 

After likening the modern church to the outdated pay phone, Jones relentlessly begins his repeated charges toward the institutional church:

• "We may now be hearing the American church's death rattle"
• "the fabric of traditional denominations is tearing"
• "the real problem is an outmoded denominational structure"
• "[not theology] but denominationalism itself that's the issue"
• "[it's not faith] but [denominationalism]...they've been offered"
• "[Pastors agree] that denominations are outmoded forms of Christianity"
• "the gospel has been suffocated out of mainline denominations"

I think I can stop with those.  One thing is clear:  Jones, from my impression, and EC in general, believe that denominationalism is at the root of the church's woes in the 21st century.  Nor is it just "mainline" denominations about which Jones fires his fury. For him, both the left and right are to be rejected outright. Interested Southern Baptist readers will find soon enough how Jones views the SBC.  We are recorded by the court's clerk as "Exhibit B" in the prosecution's case that the church is dead (p.5)

Thus, since both theological polarities of liberal mainlines who are resolutionaries and conservatives who are reactionaries offer no better option than the other, Jones looks for a third way--the revolutionary.  Jones optimistically sees that a "new church is emerging from the compost of Christendom" (p.7).  And what is that which rises from the dust of a disintegrated hull we formerly knew?  Obviously.  The Emergent Church.

With that, I am...

Peter

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V 

 

Comments

[volfan007]

Peter,

Help me to understand this. Are they saying that the systematic preaching and teaching of the Bible is not the way to go? Are they saying that expository preaching would be a bad thing? If so, then I have more problems with all of this emergent church stuff than ever.

David

[Scott Gordon]

Peter,

I discovered a fitting confirmation to my conclusions regarding the Emerging, Emergent, Friend of Emergent "Church" yesterday when I read in the MBC Pathway that Brian McLaren is throwing his support behind the candidacy of Sen. Obama...not that Sen. McCain is any prize to speak of, but the Democrat Senator from Illinois has certainly done nothing to recommend himself to Christians who tenaciously cling to the Bible and its infallible authority for our lives.

SOLA GRATIA!

[Strider]

Wow, if you judge a movement by the Presidential Candidate one guy endorses that says more about you than them.

But, I am yet going to be patient with the Emergent crowd. I had a unique opportunity in my own spiritual journey as I went to Middle Earth in 1996 and was able to minister in a place that had no established Church. I left the US very burned out on 'traditional' church and was able to reform my theology of the church in a vacuum of sorts. But one thing I feel strongly about and that is the Church is the Bride of Christ. She is not what she is intended to be- what she will yet become. We can all rest assured that Christ is building and changing His Church. We will change. But when we speak to Christ's Bride we must do so with respect. The EC crowd will do us a favor by speaking prophetically and they are putting their hands on some real issues but they will do themselves a favor if they treat His Bride with respect and not demean her.
I will definitely get the book and see if they are going on a journey similar to mine or if they are going down a road that should not be traveled.

[Baptman]

Peter,
The Emergents are the new liberals. They deny the clarity and infallibility of the Bible. It is also a group who have a liberal political agenda and I cringe to think that anyone would consider them evangelical (in its purest sense). We need to pray that God would deliver them and deliver the church from them.

[Scott Gordon]

Strider,

It is not the political candidate...it is the advocacy of ideals and the very statements the Democrat candidate has made concerning conservative, Bible-believing Christians who must drop their biblical basis for convictions when they come to the marketplace of ideas so as to not be offensive...unless a secular validation can be brought to the issue, then the political will cannot be formulated to support that issue...that idea, from the Democrat Senator, is untenable...but seemingly is pot problematic for someone like McLaren who already wants us to reformulate Christianity to 'fit' (read that as be acceptable, palatable to) a postmodern mindset.

The wishy-washy, oozey-goozey, mind of the emerging-emergent-don't call us a church-we are a movement-no, we are a conversation...it's like trying to nail jello to a wall...it might be sweet but has no solid substance.

SG!

[Liz]

I have to wonder about an Emergent church that I know that is in the SBC. If they are so against denominationalism, why stay in the SBC?

Liz

[Strider]

Congratulations Scott you bought Dobson's take on Obama's speech hook, line, and sinker and proved what the emergent group has been saying all along. We don't listen and we don't communicate. Obama was not saying that YOU couldn't have a biblical conviction he was saying that if you want to convince an atheist of your position you might try doing something other than quoting Bible verses that had no authority for him. He said the same for the secularist- if they want to talk to us they needed to stop insulting our faith. He was talking about how to move agendas forward in the public square not how to live our own personal lives. He was very clear in his speech on this but Dobson- and apparently you only hear what you want to hear. Which again, is what the emergent crowd accuses us of: We don't listen to people, therefore we do not know who they are, and therefore we do not communicate the gospel to them. Then we wring our hands and say, 'We gave it our best shot, their blood is not on our hands!' No, we have not given it our best shot. We have not listened and we have not loved.
Again, this is me speaking- I don't know the emergent guys too well so I should not speak for them but for some reason your comment got me writing!

[Scott Gordon]

Strider,

Glad to know I hit the right button! When one denies homosexuality is sin...When one diminishes or even disavows the exclusivity of Christ...When one belittles those "Bible clingers"...am I to be castigated for not really listening and thus must allow for one like the Democrat Senator or the leading "spokesman" for the ECM to be supported when they wish to reject scriptural truth?? One's such as I have mentioned are certainly welcome to their perspectives...and I will duly note when their beliefs run contrary to biblical truth.

By the way, you don't know that I didn't listen to the Democrat Senator in his entirety... or that I read or listened to Dr. Dobson's report, or heard the speech with commentary from secular political talk radio. You assume too much with your last comment.

And finally, just a couple of things...

I do believe I was talking within the Democrat Senator's context...the moving of ideas in the public arena (but, just for argument's sake, don't many issues of public import impact private/personal ethics and morality?) Saying that a Christian politician must defend his advocacy of a position on a purely secular basis in the political arena simply because non-believing atheists are present is the height of absurdity. The converse of that statement might also be proffered...since Christians exist in the political arena, all atheists must speak their points of view from a theist's perspective. My problem with the Democrat Senator stems from his constant--not just one-time--dismissive attitude toward Bible-centered Christians and their (my) world view.

I have no problem with seeing many of the assessments the ECM has made about Christianity as profitable for our consideration...the suggested solutions to the said challenges we face in our world today is the problem I have with this 'movement.'

SG!