Here is Jeffrey Jue's article on the Emerging Church's take on church history - specifically the period of the Reformation. Jeffrey was one of the instructors in my Salvation 2 class at WTS, and I always appreciated his excitement for whatever he was teaching.
The gist of his article is that while seeking to maintain a historical connection with the church that has gone before, the emerging church has largely ignored the Reformation church of the 16th and 17th centuries. This is because emerging church leaders have blindly accepted the view that Reformation theologians were corrupted by the enlightenment and rationalism. They have discounted Reformation theologians as being shackled by modernity, and thus find them irrelevant for today's postmodern world. In his own words:
The Emergent Church is not introducing a new Christianity completely detached from any historical roots. Yet the postmodern periodization of history has contributed to the utter neglect or at the very least gross distortion of Reformation and post-Reformation history and theology. Other than a hollow view of Semper Reformanda, the Reformed tradition is abandoned as a meaningful theological partner in their “emerging conversation” with postmodernity.
Jeffrey goes on to propose that the Reformed tradition has much to offer the emerging church, and he offers three examples of how Reformation theology could be useful to the emerging church.
First, I think the examples he offers are excellent, and could be multiplied a hundred-fold. I'm excited to see one of the faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary getting involved in the emerging church discussion, and hope others will follow suit. [If anyone has knowledge of other articles/sites where WTS profs are offering helpful suggestions for the emerging church, please post these in the comments].
The biggest issue I have with the article is that I'm not sure his assessment that the emerging church has neglected Reformation history and theology is accurate. One of the more influential voices of the global emerging church on the web is Andrew Jones. In this post Andrew mentions a number of churches that are emerging from within the Reformed tradition, and he argues strongly (both here and in a few other posts - sorry I couldn't locate the others, Andrew) for emerging churches to remain connected to their ecclesiastical/theological roots. There are a number of us (Alan, Jerry, Jeff, Michelle, Krissy and Pat, just to name a few) who are seeking to emerge from within a denomination (the Presbyterian Church in America - sorry Pat, I know you're EPC) that has arguably one of the strongest links to the Reformation church and theology. I'll admit we haven't emerged very far yet. But I'd say for all of us that whatever theology we do, it will be strongly influenced by our connection to Reformed Presbyterian churches.
Sure, there may be some within the emerging church who come from traditions that have already neglected the Reformation, and there are others who self-consciously do so on their own, but these do not represent the whole of the emerging church. Your thoughts?
12 comments:
Dan, thanks for making me aware of this article and the one by Andrew Jones. Just the kind of stuff we need. Seeking to contextualize the gospel in the emerging culture demands this kind of conversation. Hopefully, it can remain a conversation and not become a shouting match. I for one am not interested in the latter. Grace, John
hey - thanks for the link and the mention
yes - there are good reasons to stay connected inside ones denomination - like Ruth stuck to Naomi and they shared their fates together (unlike Ophir)
but it is also true that many in the emerging church, especially outside of USA, have never been to another church in their life, are less than 12 months old in Christ, and are certainly not reacting to the old way of doing church because they have no idea what happens there.
but for those lucky to have a christian heritage and the anchoring of a denomination, it is valuable and worth holding on to for as long as you can.
Hey Dan, thanks for the mention too.
The Emergent church cannot be isolated or pinned down because it does not want to be. It revels in diversity, which can drive Moderns to misunderstand or typecast.
It is a movement that is centered on a new media, the internet/blogs. I have enormous disagreements with many who are Emergent, but I want to be a part of the conversation. In this conversation, you cannot narrow down a position or a person (McLaren).
Until we, post moderns have a seat at the academic table (a PhD), there will be no definition of Emergent. But then, here is the rub, we don't want PhD's. We want to theologize. We are in the process of theolgizing in this movement and moment of history. We are deconstructing ourselves so that we can reconstruct around Christ, and therefore deconstruct our world for the New Creation.
As someone called Post-Modern, I have seen my white, middle class American bias in how I read Scripture (@ WTS). I need eyes to read it as an African, a Korean, a Visigoth pagan in the 4th century, a Reformer, and as a 1st century Jew for the sake of the nations.
That is what Emergent Church is to me: an opportunity
Andrew, thanks for the reminder that many in the emerging church are not "reacting to the old way". Us Reformed guys tend to forget that very quickly.
Jerry, I agree that it's hard to nail down what's happening in the emerging church. As I recall, Dr. Jue's article makes a lot of use of MacLaren - a guy whom I love to read and from whom I have learned a lot; but also a guy that I'd be reluctant to have as my theological spokesperson. And, to be fair, it's hard to engage in conversation with such a broad spectrum of people in the course of a short article. So choosing to engage with MacLaren isn't really a bad choice.
Was reading MacLaren and came across this quote today...it kind of proves Jue's point
Luther and Calvin created Protestant intellectual systems...that replaced the Catholic organizational hierarchy. But nobody created a new system of spiritual formation and nurture to replace the richly developed Catholic system of spirituality that had developed during the Middle Ages. Nobody did so in the sixteenth century, and nobody did so in the seventeenth or most of the eighteenth - until the Wesleys.
I think MacLaren is wrong (take for example many of the Puritans in the vein of John Owen, or even the Westminster Catechisms in their original intended use as catechisms). But I also still think Jue is wrong to extrapolate from MacLaren to the emerging church as a whole.
Dan, I don't know if you're aware that the July/August issue of "Modern Reformation" wrestled with Emergent. There you will find articles by Dr. Horton and others that, I think, are fair and to the point. You will also find interviews with McLaren and the late Dr. Grenz. Even though the MR people are not WTS faculty, they are Westminster California faculty... Hope this helps.
Keep blogging! -Sebastian Heck
Her's the link:
http://www.modernreformation.org/toc0705.htm
one of the things i keep coming up against, as someone who likes to bend my mind around theory and challenge my understanding of church, is that i still love reformed theology. i'm not very widely read, but it's what i've been raised on. and i feel like everytime i've challenged it, i've discovered how rich it is. it makes me feel very out of place as a postmodern--to have rather definite views on theology.
i've begun to feel like a certain amount of disenculturation is necessary. in the same way that i put off my 'needs' and 'rights' as an american citizen when i'm in another culture so that they aren't a hindrance to the gospel, i think i need to do that with my theology.
the problem is that i feel like a bastard child within my denomination just by virtue of the fact that i am willing to put it off. so i feel in some sense like no one will own me. (i didn't follow the link to modern reformation, but from what i understand (hearsay) horton is pretty critical of emergent.)
which, i suppose, is what happens when you pursue a call to cross-cultural missions. you resign your sense of 'home' in order to pursue Christ.
sorry, this is random. there are several thoughts bouncing around and a certain amount of frustration. but i'm glad to find someone else who is thinking about these things.
mm,
you should follow the link. Horton is actually one of the better representatives I've read from our tradition in his critiques of Emergent and the emerging church. He's fair, understands the movement pretty well, and presents his views in a posture of humility and mutual edification and accountability. If you follow the link to Modern Reformation's site, they have a few links in the sidebar to Andrew Jones' blog where Andrew and Michael Horton have some dialogue. It's good stuff and worth the time to read.
In addition, D.A. Carson has a short article in that edition of Modern Reformation. While I think Carson understands the movement less and isn't as constructive a critic as Horton, I also think that he has been caricatured by emerging folk, and is not as off-base as some would make him out to be.
mm,
also, I totally resonate with your feeling of theological homelessness (to change metaphors).
Welcome Mark. Nice to have you around.
Hey all,
Sorry it has been so long since I've posted here. I am taking Jue's Modern Church class right now and he actually gave a public repentance the other day in class for some of his comments in the article you are referring to. So he does have a spirit of understanding towards the emergent church. I do know he was highly influenced by D.A. Carson's, "Becoming Conversent with the Emergent Church."
I am going to write a paper this semester about the emergent church movement and i'd love to get everyone's feedback. It would actually be pretty interesting to get Dr. Jue to chime in here personally on this discussion...maybe I'll let him know people are talking about him!
one more comment...i just heard from jeff jue and he wanted me to clarify something about his recent public repentance so as not to skew the record. here is what he wrote...
One note of clarification that you can pass on - it has been interesting to hear how students have perceived my apology last Fri. Some took it as a substantive concession to the Emerging church agenda, others thought I was endorsing Vanhoozer as the way forward, while others believed I was retracting my overall arguement. None of this is the case. I simply apologized for describing the entire emergent movement (or more accurately post-conservative evangelicalism) as anti-intellectual and lacking any theological depth. While up to the time that I wrote the article (Aug, 2005) I had not seen any examples of intellectual/theological depth (I do not regard Grenz or Franke as good examples), the latest work by Vanhoozer IS an example of one who is consciously post-conservative, yet brings intellectual and theological depth. My generalization was inaccurate. However, I do not endorse Vanhoozer's program, and I stand by the overall critique given in my article.
sorry for not representing things accurately, dr. jue.
Post a Comment