The Missional Network

The philosophical hallmark of the "emerging" movement seems to be "emergent thinking"; i.e. that human understanding is progressive, and this requires that we periodically reevaluate our systems (like theology) and tweak them accordingly. McLaren likens it to tree rings: as the tree grows, it adds more layers that encompass and include the old layers. How should we think about theology in light of where humanity has come from, intellectually speaking? Should our theological systems adapt/change? If so, how much?

---

Illusion will dissipate. Truth will emerge. ...Ask your questions.

I think that the emerging church movement is one of the most dangerous movements to face evangelical theology in years.  Now don't get me wrong, the surface statements and goals don't seem bad, the problem is the underlying assumptions of the theology that lead to universalism and is often comes with a mindset that says theology and doctrine is unimportant.  Theology literally means the study of God.  Doctrine is literally a body of teachings or fundamental principles.  How can either of these be unimportant?  Yes they need to be presented less confrontationally, but they are still important.  Yes we as Christians need to learn to be cooperative with those who are doctrinally divergent, but it still important to recognize, value and understand those differences.  (In Essentials Unity, in non-essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.)  I value a Presbyterian, Methodist or Charismatic more because I know how they are different from me than when I ignore the differences or cover them over so we act like their are no differences.

For an excellent study of emergent theology, look at http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?ArticleID=1212 ,http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=513 and http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=503

--
In the father and on the journey
|K< |E[ \V/ ]I[ |N|
Kevin Finkenbinder

---

In the Father and On the Journey
|K< |E[ \V/ ]I[ |N|
Kevin Finkenbinder
College Ministry Director
and Chruch Planter

I don't want to be dismissive, Kevin, but I read over the articles that you linked to, and each of the authors is reciting objections that I've heard elsewhere. I think they're missing the point (interestingly, a banner ad on the site that hosts all three articles says "Are you a liberal or conservative worldview thinker? Find out with our FREE worldview test." -That's exactly what I'm referring to.). It's an unfortunate irony that good men are attacking something for the wrong reasons. Each of the authors (like most critics of the emerging movement) tends to isolate and criticize statements that aren't made using "evangelicalese"; the code we use to let others know what theological label we identify ourselves with. The movement is a "conversation" - that means that it invites ANYONE to participate. That means that you'll find views as divergent as possible within the movement. There is virtually no consensus, other than a desire for change born out of a conviction that we've got some serious self-examination and rethinking to do.
The concerns you voiced indicate that you have had some direct experience with individuals who identify with the movement that are univeralists... right? I don't espouse universalism. I haven't run across it much among the "emerging" writers that I've read. What I do identify with is the realization that we have gotten off track by focusing our energy on finding the perfect systemetization of truth (we do this by finding a school of theology and adopting that label; I'm a __________). That's just as extreme as saying there is no truth.
Those who appreciate the emerging movement seem to scare others precisely because they avoid the labels... generally not out of relativism or universalism, but out of a disgust with how those labels communicate an identity that is warped. I don't want to be warped, and that requires being open to examine my beliefs because I might be wrong.

My original intent in posting was to point out that because human intellect is limited, our systems need to be constantly re-evaluated and revised, for the purpose of establishing a more accurate systemic understanding of truth: bringing the picture into sharper focus... noticing more detail. We can't do that if we are busy choosing a theological system created in the past by someone else and then building a fortress of arguments and reassurances that we've got the "right one".
I'd like to hear some feedback on that concept (emergent thinking), pro or con... and move beyond acknowledging the potential pitfalls inherent in reevaluating our belief systems. How can shifting our role from theological technician to mental risk-taker and adventurer help us to understand the truth that God wants to communicate to humanity?

---

Illusion will dissipate. Truth will emerge. ...Ask your questions.

In my limited experience with those from the Emergent Community, some good experiences, other not so good, have led me to see that their search for truth is not found necessarily in a body of doctrinal beliefs, even though they all have a body of beliefs, but their search for truth is in a body of spiritual practices.  What I mean by that is that those in the emergent community are more interested in being doers of the word and not hearers only.  In their Bible study they may come across a spiritual practice like fasting, which is commended by scripture to participate in, as they begin to participate in that practice they will begin to ask the question, "how does this affect my theology?"  Or they may hear the words of Christ, "Blessed are the peace makers..." and they begin to contemplate what the practice of a peace maker would be and then ask, "how does this affect my theology?"  Instead of having a body of beliefs that lead to their practice, they begin with "Spiritual Practices" that they find in scripture and allow those practices to be the launching pad for evaluating their theology.  Most of the Emergent pastor that I have known have also used the Bible, along with the spiritual practices, to help define their theology. 

As conservative evangelicals we are more comfortable with starting with our set of beliefs.  Our beliefs, our theology, is our sacred cow.  But for the emergent it is the spiritual practices, the doing of the word that is sacred to them.  In reality both are important.  James is the one who said that faith without works is dead.  Belief without practice is useless and maybe not even real belief at all.  But practice without right belief can turn into idolatry.  There is a fine tension that must exist.