Open Source Theology on Grace-Centred Forums again

A couple of years ago I drew attention to a discussion on Grace-Centred Forums about the manifest demerits (‘Makes Leonard Sweet look like Splenda!’, ‘open sores theology’, ‘They think Jesus is the Penguin, not the Lamb, Who was slain from the foundations of the world’) and rare merits (thank you, ellisadam) of Open Source Theology and about the tendency for it to be confused with Open Theism. The thread was recently revived: ‘two years have gone by and I still have no idea 1) what Open Source Theology is 2) what the “emergent church” means 3) if is on the increase or decrease now?’ So I thought I would take the risk of addressing the matter directly on the forum, and since there is an ever-present need to clarify the nature and purpose of the whole ‘emerging church’ phenomenon, I have attached my posts below. I would be interested to hear how others see things.

The first post very briefly and crudely differentiates between the emerging church, Open Source Theology, and Open Theism. The second is an attempt to answer the specific question: ‘So would an Emerging Church person think of Christianity in its present form as Corrupted, or Outdated?’

Emerging church, Open Source Theology, and Open Theism

The emerging church is a very broad movement - much broader than the phenomenon of Emergent in the US. In my view it is the process - a conversation, a re-reading of scripture, a redefining of mission, a restructuring of church life - provoked by the recognition that the Christendom paradigm is no longer viable, at least in the West. The emerging church is the church as it emerges from Christendom, as it explores the implications of having been pushed to the margins of society and culture.

The Open Source Theology website is an attempt to nurture the emerging theological conversation at a grass-roots, collaborative level. It is not to be confused with…

Open Theism which, as I understand it, is a specific theological position that prefers to think of God as relationally open in contrast to more deterministic theologies which ascribe to God a level of fore-knowledge that in principle leaves little room for negotiation…. Most people who think of themselves as being part of the emerging church, however, would probably incline towards an Open Theist position.

What would an emerging church person think of Christianity in its present form?

It’s difficult to speak for everyone who would identify with the movement, so this must be regarded as a limited perspective. But I think the main argument would be that ‘modern’ forms of Christianity are not well adapted to address the changing circumstances that the church finds itself in - not only as modernity gives way to post-modernity (whatever we mean by that) but also as Christendom gives way to post-Christendom. Some fundamental social, cultural, intellectual and religious assumptions are being abandoned, and I think that the emerging church is basically the church as it struggles to come to terms with this. I would stress, however, that this struggle can be seen as much within the established churches as in the protest against them, and that as with any movement of reform, there is some (much?) caricaturing of existing conditions - so be warned.

For some the emerging church is largely a cultural issue - the sort of demand for a better cultural fit that happens with every generation. So everything looks and sounds a lot more hip, but the underlying structures of church and theology remain unchanged.

For others it’s primarily philosophical: the old ways of asserting Christianity as public truth don’t work for them anymore - or for people that they know outside the church. Broadly speaking this is reflected in a preference for narrative ways of constructing theology over systematic or propositional ways. The postmodern critique of knowledge as power comes into play. We are much more conscious of the subjective status of all knowledge. People are wary of claims to absolute truth, not because they want to relativize their faith but because they sense that this sort of epistemological rigidity does not help us to integrate thought and praxis. The recovery of wholeness and integrity is a crucial aspiration of the emerging church.

For an increasing number the issue is ‘missional’. The church is simply in the wrong place - culturally, structurally, geographically, philosophically - to reach people. So the church must move, and most would argue that this must be a move to the margins of society. This leads to a preference for inclusive models of Christian community over exclusive, which inevitably raises awkward questions about boundaries. There is also a strong desire to extend the scope of mission beyond personal evangelism. Many would want to include broad social and political transformation in the missional objectives of the church.

This connects with the view of many that modern Christianity has been co-opted by a culture of corporate success and personal consumption: Christians have become private consumers in churches whose overarching objectives are size and status. Many in the emerging church are endeavouring to develop a counter-cultural lifestyle that is about more than a consumer-driven personal piety and what appears to be a very narrow obsession with homosexuality and abortion. Theologically this has encouraged what I would regard as an understandable but distorting focus on the person of Jesus, who is seen as a radical, subversive, risk-taking, prophetic, anti-establishment messiah who created a community of followers in his own image.

Finally, I would say that the emerging church is looking for ways to break out of the straight jacket of a hermeneutic that is interested only in supporting the very limited dogmatic interests of contemporary evangelicalism. A key shift here would be from an eschatology oriented towards heaven and hell to an eschatology oriented towards the renewal of creation - that is an aspect of the concern for integrity. I listed what I saw as the leading characteristics of an emerging theology a few years ago here.

Tom Sine’s book The New Conspirators has a useful chapter on the background to the emerging movement, which he regards as one of four streams that make up the ‘lively edge of what God is doing in our constantly changing society’. A synopsis can be found here.

No votes yet

Comments

Re: Open Source Theology on Grace-Centred Forums again

Andrew writes:

The emerging church is a very broad movement - much broader than the phenomenon of Emergent in the US. In my view it is the process - a conversation, a re-reading of scripture, a redefining of mission, a restructuring of church life - provoked by the recognition that the Christendom paradigm is no longer viable, at least in the West. The emerging church is the church as it emerges from Christendom, as it explores the implications of having been pushed to the margins of society and culture.”

I think it is accurate to say that this vision is broader than that typically associated with the term “Emergent” here in the US. Here this description would more accurately be applied to the term “missional.” The missional conversation here encompasses all of what Andrew names, while the emergent conversation seems to have a more limited scope (sometimes it is dismissed as being all about having lots of candles in worship).

Re: Open Source Theology on Grace-Centred Forums again

Yes, I agree. The emerging conversation is pursuing a number of different paths across uncharted territory, any one of which could prove to be a dead-end. Because it is a global emergence into the awareness of what it means to be post-Christendom, it is almost as diverse and convoluted as the global church itself. To package and brand one expression of it prematurely may get some good publicity, but it is unlikely to be helpful in the long run - indeed, it simply won’t work.

Virgil Vaduva has just provided a link to what looks like a very interesting article on the emerging church by the anthropologist James S. Bielo: The ‘Emerging Church’ in America: Notes on the interaction of Christianities. I haven’t read it yet, but I was surprised that in the abstract he states that “The ‘Emerging Church’ is an American-born movement that dates to the late 1990s.” That may be true of the Emergent movement in the US, which after all is what the article appears to be about; but it suggests a rather blinkered understanding of the emerging phenomenon.

Re: Open Source Theology on Grace-Centred Forums again

The most effective way of understanding Open Source Theology is as a collaborative metaphorical narrative. This is rather like Jesus teaching in parables in order to confuse and irritate the Pharisees. The metaphor is explored in The Sir Toby Chronicles. A similar exploration of OST is made in Crossways - Journeyings into the Emergent with Open Source Theology - and an explanation is given in the Preface, which can be read as a preview on the same link.

Open Source Theology is also a place where experimental ideas can be aired, debated and held up to inspection without the threat of death or instant excommunication. It is a place where diverse characters across continents can encounter each other in ways which would not otherwise have been possible. It’s a place where I can promote The Sir Toby Chronicles and carry on a covert campaign for their promotion to be posted on the OST mainpage (did I really say that?). It is also a forum for displaying the vanity of its contributors.

OST is an important displacement activity for those in the workplace or when they should have been getting on with college theses (I notice almost nobody contributes over weekends). It’s a place for chronic insomniacs and those delayed at airports. But for me, it’s a place where I have honed my theological debating skills and the way I think theologically, aided in no small part by the site owner. And I have also grieved into my Guinness and grumbled about the world with John Doyle in dark corners of Sir Toby’s, the backpacker’s hostel in Prague whose existence is a welcome retreat from the rarefied world of contemporary academic theology and Christian belief.

In short, it’s a place of cyber-encounter and cyber-solace, a happy spin-off of which is to annoy and confuse the religious right. It is a vision for the possibility of a new kind of community. And where else could regular cyber-convocations be held in medieval hostelries, pan-European escapades be launched, cloak and dagger chicanery be insinuated, and the only non-virtual, real-time conference be convened, as it was three or four years ago in the cafeteria of the Royal Festival Hall, London?

Re: Open Source Theology on Grace-Centred Forums again

I find this a very helpful summary of the kinds of areas in which the emerging church phenomenon has significance. If I could condense it further, the church’s response to the contemporary world and its culture is here outlined in five ways:

i. cultural adaptation - whilst keeping structures and theology intact

ii. philosophical adaptation - reorganising theology to be more in tune with contemporary ways in which people think and see things, taking account of contemporary preference for ‘the subjective status of all knowledge’.

iii. missional adaptation - the church not only being where the people are that it is trying to reach, but being more inclusive of them. This affects boundaries and ecclesiology.

iv. counter-cultural lifestyle adaptation as a subset of the previous point, and other points

v. adaptation of the church’s ‘dogmatic interests’ in a shift from the life to come to this life (to summarise baldly)

I’d have thought that each of these areas and issues could valuably be pursued and addressed separately - though they are all interconnected.

One or two preliminary observations.

First, I think that to invoke the purported demise of Christendom - ‘as Christendom gives way to post Christendom’ - to support any argument is a very lazy way of thinking. For instance, if we are being encouraged to think of the decay of ‘Christendom’ (whatever that is) as a recent phenomenon, what are we to make of these lines from Matthew Arnold’s ‘Dover Beach’, written in 1851 (possibly as early as 1849)?

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl’d.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar

In what seems to me to be a similar kind of laziness, Arnold contemplates the general ‘loss of faith’ in his contemporary world. So when did ‘Christendom’ decline? What actually is ‘Christendom’, and did it ever exist?

Second, there may be a preference in contemporary thinking for ‘the subjective status of truth’, but this does not alter the philosophical status of truth itself. I’d have thought Christianity is in an excellent position to accommodate itself to contemporary culture here, with Jesus presenting “truth” as personal (though not subjective), and the challenge to his followers today being the integrity of his message in their lives and experience as much as their ability to articulate knowledge about that message.

Third, ‘inclusiveness’ is the buzzword of our times, but ultimately the existence of the people of God is based on ontological realities and categories which make them as distinct in their character from other people as they should also be in their lifestyles and behaviour. Or to look at it another way, either Jesus is Lord (in your life) or he isn’t, and that does create some distinctions.

Fourth, the criticism that the ‘view of many that modern Christianity has been co-opted by a culture of corporate success and personal consumption’ is an argument that the church’s friendly critics are, I think, winning, and are in the process of presenting better alternatives. But I disagree that the ‘co-opting culture’ is falsely countered by ‘an understandable but distorting focus on the person of Jesus’. I would argue that there has been insufficient focus on the person of Jesus, or a distortion of what that focus means in its social implications and outworking.

Finally ‘the very limited dogmatic interests of contemporary evangelicalism’ is of course an overstatement and oversimplification. ‘Contemporary evangelicalism’ is in the forefront of a very diverse application of faith to the contemporary world and its issues. You would have to be living in a time warp to to believe that there was such a limited dogmatic interest - even if it ever was the case, which I very much doubt.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.