Inclusion and Accountability

Paula, if I have understood you correctly, you pose two distinct questions. How does accountability work - particularly, I suppose, in the absence of conventional leadership structures? And what are the characteristic areas of weakness or ‘sin’ in the emerging church?

1) There is an accountability process that is internal to the emerging church movement. It operates - or ought to operate - somewhat through friendships and conversations. It arises from a shared hunger for truth and authenticity, from a shared orientation towards an unclear but alluring ideal, from a shared sensitivity to certain types of failings. The emerging church has a strong and distinctive value system that implicitly holds people accountable - to the point of narrow-mindedness, cultural conformity, and censorship at times. Of course, there are some obvious dangers in having accountability managed through relationships rather than through formal structures.

There is also, increasingly, an external pressure of accountability as a critique develops from outside the movement. Don Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church is a prime example. Closer to home there is Rob Wilkerson’s critique of open source theology.

2) What are the characteristic failings of the emerging church? In what ways especially do we need to be held accountable? Well, since I mentioned Carson’s book, why not allow him to articulate his principle concerns?

• ‘there is a danger in constantly exploding the certainties of the past: if we are not careful, we may be left with nothing to hang on to at all’ (31)
• the emerging church’s analysis of contemporary culture fails at a number of points: its ‘tendency towards reductionism, its condemnation of confessional Christianity, some theological shallowness and intellectual incoherence, and a particularization of those three issues’ (57)
• ‘emerging writers and preachers are so busy telling us how culture has changed that their response has offered very little critique of the changes’ (125)
• ‘emergent writers do not handle the truth claims of Christianity very well’ (131)
• ‘Why cannot I hear any emerging leader saying that Scripture is more authoritative precisely because it is God-revealed and true, and that creeds must be tested (and, if necessary, revised) by Scripture, and not vice versa, for precisely this reason?’ (142)
• ‘Emergent writers commonly so prioritize belonging that it is difficult to see how one can honor the precious responsibilities and privileges of those who have actually become Christians’ (152)
• ‘parts of the movement are driven by their own jargon’ (155)
• ‘This is not to say that the emerging leaders are always wrong in their handling of the facts or their use of Scripture, or that all of them are equally wrong; it is to say that the pattern of distortion is so persistent that after a while it becomes painful to read them’ (156)
• ‘I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel’ (186)

These are issues largely of epistemology, cultural analysis, and biblical interpretation. We could also begin to list more practical shortcomings. Here are a few that come to mind:

• A failure to maintain consistent patterns and habits of discipleship
• A rather self-absorbed, elitist, and narcissistic spirit
• An excessive aversion to all things conventionally evangelical and charismatic
• Confusion over boundaries and objectives
• An inability to develop significant, lasting expressions of corporate faith
• A reluctance to plan or organize the life and mission of the church
• A tendency towards cultural and spiritual superficiality
• An obsession with blogging personalities