I would like to canvass people’s views on the question of the relationship between an ‘emerging theology’ (as best we understand it) and mainstream evangelical theology. What are the main points of tension, disagreement, divergence? What are the main points of overlap, similarity, congruity? Do you feel that the sort of thinking represented on this site, for example, constitutes a significant departure from evangelical thought? Do you regard emerging theology as a reform movement within evangelical thought? Is emerging theology sub-biblical, sub-evangelical, sub-orthodox? Am I even right to focus in this question on the relationship between emerging theology and evangelicalism?
Please keep your answers brief, to the point. By
all means reference other discussions and writings, on this site and
elsewhere. If you wish to comment at length on a matter, I suggest you
start a separate thread and provide a cross-reference.
Emergent Theology is modern
Emergent Theology is modern theology. What is the relationship between modern theology and mainstream evangelical theology?
Put another way, do we know something now that is compelling us to reevaluate historical evangelical theology?
I think in this context, you can probably answer the rest for yourself.
I would add though that the content posted to this site is that of its poster and that it varies between very orthodoxy and outright heresy.
Clarification please, Rob
‘Emergent Theology is modern theology.’ Interesting. Could you elucidate?
Sure. Emergent theology is
Sure. Emergent theology is de-facto a Zeitgeist theology. Theoretically, it could be principally prophetic - theology emerging from God via a prophet, but I don’t believe that to be the case. Indeed, it’s easy to see how some might fancy the idea of truth emerging by people’s preferences ("look 51% of people support armpit shaving, it’s a form of prophecy! God is saying is now squarely on the armpit-shaving side!): be on guard for this, it’s evil. Emergin thelogy is about know the truth about what’s emering, not saying that what’s emerging is true.
Emergent theology is the theology of what people will believe in the future. At one point, indulgences were part of the emergent theology, and of course are now off the radar. At another point, the priesthood of the believer was part of the emergent theology, and that of course is still well entrenced in the modern theology, still contained in today’s emergent theology.
In summary when you here something lofty said about Emergent Theology, quietly insert the word "Today’s". (Today’s) Emergent Thelogy centers around <fill in the blank>.
'modern' is a slippery word...
When I use the word modern, I tend to mean a period in philosophy, criticism, design etc. that I think of as being in the past. In my mind, both liberal and evangelical theology belong within modernity. ‘Modern’ meaning ‘up to date’ brings a whole different perspective. I’d say emerging theology is by definition modern in that sense, although that in itself is an interesting concept…
I suppose the most interesting thing about this debate is that we are not arguing about the truth of emerging theology (a very ‘modern’ debate), but about the extent to which emerging theology is ‘true to’ our present time. This level of self awareness is something new I think. I thought I wouldn’t like Pete Rollins’s ‘How (Not) to Speak of God, but so far I’m doing OK. I don’t really know if it has much to say to the inner city neighbourhood where I live, but I do like his assertion that we are all what he calls a/theists: even as we formulate a description of God, it is our duty as Christians to deny that these words are ‘the truth’ about God. All this seems very different to me from arguments about whether or not certain miracles really happened, or the extent to which we can ignore the moral teaching of the Old Testament. These seem to be the kind of old chestnuts that evangelicals and liberals argue about, and don’t reflect the new postmodern critical awareness that Pete exemplifies.
It seems to me that postliberalism has a much more positive outlook than postevangelicalism, and perhaps evangelicals might find more love of God, scripture, discipleship and spirituality in those emerging from other parts of the church than those emerging from our own.
Maybe.
ologies of a different kind
I would say a main point of tension would be “certainty.” Not to say that emerging thought is any less certain of the theological conclusions, but rather, the road to those conclusions is a bit different.
Mainstream evangelical theology is more formulaic such as A + B = C.
Emerging theology would still conclude with “c” but it would look more like ‘once upon a time… = C.
It’s a case of propositional versus narrative; logical certainty versus critical assurance.
what think ye?
del dominus
Or D or E or A
Having realised the shift to “once upon a time” then the C outcome is exposed as being more provisional, and that D or E is equally so, or the A begun with if only it made any sense with the X where we are.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Emerging theology , at least
Emerging theology , at least to my understanding from this site, seems to be both personal and dynamic. It rejects prescribed dogma so is therefore to some degree both a reform movement and a departure from evangelical thought.
Whether or not it is sub-biblical, sub-evangelical or sub-orthodox will, of course, depend on whose emerging theology you are speaking of and when you speak to them. I agree with del dominus that “emergents(?)” will eventually get to the same conclusion via a different route than evangelicals but only in some areas. I’m sure we are wrong about some points and there is lots of room for debate and disagreement about the gray areas. Is there a thread somewhere about what is essential and what isn’t?
It becomes liberal
Once you knock away the rule book, unless there is another rule book, there must be relativity and liberality. Much of the material I read here does not seem very evangelical, and people seem to be reasoning quite freely.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Of course, pluralist, you have assumed that what is reasonable is liberal and what is evangelical (because it is not liberal) is therefore not reasonable. Just because reason is here doesn’t mean it is caused by “liberality” (read: non-evangelical).
Therefore, I submit that emergent differs from mainstream evangelicalism (and I combine fundamentalism in this for the sake of argument and without nuance) in that:
Emergent acknowledges that the bible is not the sum of its parts but is greater.
Emergent believes that the Kingdom has been misunderstood and misappropriated (not just be contemporary evangelicals!) and is at the heart of Christian faith.
(borrowed from McLaren) Emergent emphasizes that believing and living Christianity in the world need not be separate.
I also observe an *emerging* :) emphasis on pneumatology as the outworking of the Kingdom as opposed to more therapeutic, personal-experiential emphases or downright marginalization.
Also emerging is an emphasis on justice/righteousness (dikaiosyne) as central to discipleship.
Commonalities:
An emphasis on evangelism (granted it looks very different!)
An emphasis on personal piety and personal relationship to God
A retained emphasis on non-liturgical prayer (although liturgical prayer is respected and incorporated as well — yet neither is exclusive)
Opposition to modernity and its arrogant certainty (ironic, yes?)
That’s all I can think of for now but I hope it generates discussion…
Emergent theology is evangelical theology in the flesh.
I think emergent theology is the evangelical answer to fundamentalism. While I agree that the lack of certainty (indeed the realisation that this place of intellectual and epistemological uncomfortableness is the “right” place to be) is characterstic of emergent theology, I doubt if this differs greatly from the personal faiths of most evangelicals. Yes, we have creeds and liturgies but surely not many would say that they’ve never doubted their creeds or strayed from their liturgies. A generous orthodoxy is still an orthodoxy.
Unfinished Business
The title “Emerging Theology” implies that this idea is inherently unfinished. It is what is next. The idea would be to take what is and look forward to what is coming. The terms postmodern and emerging are one in the same because they can never be in the present. Postmodern is what comes after the now, the modern. Emerging is what is coming next.
Evangelical Theology is such a broad idea that it is difficult to be canvassed. It is not completely modern in its dependence on science and reason. Yet, it is not completely postmodern with a rejection of absolutes and relativism. The best thing about a new though process emerging into today’s culture is a chance to “get things right.” We are afforded an opportunity to look at the ideas of today and reform, revise, or renounce.The emerging theology tends to be very applicable. It is not a lofty idea but a gritty action. It is no longer “knowing about” God, but “doing” what God asks. Theology will only become effective in the emerging culture if it can be done.
Back to the start
While thinking about emergent theology i think the concepts of modernity is incredibly important and agree with spofoid that evangelicalism and liberalism are both very modern concepts.
however theology wasn’t invented during the enlightenment, for me I see emergent theology as part of a greater global awakening, call it post modernity or whatever you like. I think of it as a political and religious awakening, focused less on empirical, scientific truth as disseminated by intelligentsia and scientists. More willing to connect with our respective heritages, our indigenous roots, a greater conversation across traditional boundaries which is being driven by technology and the Internet among other things.
I think the context in which, emergent theology is being developed is as interesting, if not more than the content of the theology itself. In fact perhaps the prophetic importance of emergent theology is not the discovery of new content or absolute truths but rather the effect which is had by the very conversation on individuals, groups, institutions and in turn the affect which this will/is have(ing) on the world.
Re: What is the relationship between emerging and evangelical th
the 'emergent church' seems to be made up of people who have looked at the evangelical, orthodox, charismatic, reformed and _______(fill in the blank) churches and have seen the cracks that each has been trying to deny or patch, and have decided that "We can do better". "We can get it right". "We will build the church 'right'."
the problem is that we overlook the fact that we've never "gotten it right" and it is not in our future to get it right. it is only if we give up on our job to "build the right church" and to believe that Christ will build His church as He promised to Peter, that the church will become what it was intended to be.
the traditional/emergent question seems a lot like a Paul/Apollos question.
Christ was asked what it would take to please God:
The church both traditional and emergent seems to have made a very simple (though definitely not always easy) requirement into an impossible list of tasks, works, and beliefs that merely work as diversions from the real work and freedom that Christ has demanded and offered.
Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. He is the exact representation of God.
that, and my faith in that, makes me a stone in the church that He is building, whatever its form.
Re: What is the relationship between emerging and evangelical th
I am very new to both emergent theology (if we can label it as such) and this site. I, therefore, ask for grace from the readers of this post.
As I read though the many posts on this site, I am struck by what appears to be an overwhelming assumption on the part of emergents: Evangelical, Orthodox, Fundamental, (your favorite here) theologies are 1. Based on false assuptions. 2. Interested only in preserving the traditional lines of thought. 3. Are hopelessly outdated and incapable of reaching a post-modern world.
I realize that I have grossly oversimplified what qualifies as “emergent”, however, it seems that much of the movement is fixated on “better answers” or “no answers”.
It seems to me that the relationship between emerging and evangelical theology is, or should be, a deep desire to know the truth, even when we do not like the truth.
Emergents and evangelicals also share another common trait: We tend to exhalt what we believe above truth (it is a happy day when what we believe IS true). Once we are invested in a certain line of thought, we usually will defend our dogma to the end (I know that some will point out that one of the marks of the emerging church is that it is less certain, implying that it is less dogmatic, however, a dogma of “uncertainty” is, nevertheless, still defended).
It seems that every honest persuit of God must begin with a simple persuit of truth. We should ask ourselves: 1.Do I believe this is true. 2. If so, why do I believe this is true. 3. Am I justified in my belief? 4. If this is true, what should my reaction be?