We finally receieved our copy of the July/August Modern Reformation The entire issue centers around the “Emergent Church”, but the article which sparked this post is called “The Emerging Church” and is available to read online.

The article’s author, D.A. Carson, writes “I have not yet seen from McLaren, or anyone else in the Emergent Church movement, a critique of any substantive element of postmodern thought.” It is this seemingly shortsighted aspect of the emergent movement which concerns me. Can the entire paradigm and philosophy of thought of a several hundred year era truly be without any merit? Carson attributes to Mclaren the idea that “If absolutism [the spirit of modernism] is the cancer, it needs reletavism as the chemotherapy. Even though this chemotherapy is dangerous in itself, it is the necessary solution.” Although the metaphor appears to give this statement convincing merit, it is inapptly applied and represents nothing more than Hegelian dialectic philosophy, a philosophy which much more resembles Hinduism, all things progressing and encompased by the one, than Christianity. I will offer a different metaphor; the diseases of the human mind may change throughout the ages, yet the remedy remains the same: Gospel.

Modernism certainly has its weaknesses and indeed a seriously troubling propensity to foster absolutism. However, any construct of the human mind, any metaphilosophy, even if it attempts to avoid the pitfall by being “conversational”, contains misconceptions, inadequacies, dangers and shortcomings.

McLaren is careful to clearly note that pure relativism is not a viable philosophy for Christianity, yet he does identify with “postmodern”. I find reading McLaren and other works about or by the Emergent is that like the true reletavist absolutely tries to argue that there is no absolute truth, postmodern writing and thought tries to articulate truth claims and make their point without giving credibility to truth claims. Apparently it is acceptable to state truth in indirect, conversational ways but not so much in direct ways. It makes much of the reading tedious to me.

Carson notes that many of the emphasis and appeals of the emergent movement modern that of the actual Reformation itself, yet with an important distinction. Though both the Emergent and the Reformed called for theocentric rather than anthropocentric preaching, the instruction of the Word throughout the week, and an emphasis on kingdom living. However, Carson notes, the Reformers were impassioned with and battled for reform because “they perceived that new theology and practices had developed in the church that contravened Scripture.” The Emergent leaders, though I am sure their may be exceptions, insists on reform because the culture has changed.

What was on appropriate use of Scripture under modernism is no longer an appropriate use of Scripture under postmodernism. On this gentler reading of Evangelicalism’s history, traditional churches are not accused of being deeply mistaken for their own times, but of being rather out of date now.”

In so far as the Emergent desire to constructively critique “modern evangelicalsim”, it’s entanglement with materialism, fundamentalism and especially the seeker-sensitive, mega-church trends, I offer a hearty “Amen”. In so far as the Emergent want to revive the depth and wholistic aspects of worship largely lost in evangelicalism, such as intimate community, multisensory worship, return to more regular offering of the Eucharist and a call for music with more depth and authentic tallent, I whole heartedly applaud their endeavor. Modernism, and the church in so far as it absorbed its tenants, decidedly undervalued the experiential, the narrative and they mystical. However, in so much as the Emergent want to define and prusue a “New Kind of Christian”, I am skeptical.

Perhaps, were Jesus to walk the earth himself today, he wouldn’t wear robes, but cords. Perhaps he would have a gotee instead of a full beard. Perhaps he would shave. Pherhaps the trappings might be “new”. However, He would still be that same Christ he was when He walked the shores of ancient Galilee. There is One kind of Christian, the One who was today, yesterday and tomorrow forever the same. It is the transcendence, the unchangableness, of Christ and of His gospel which is a steadfast rock to those in a world that has always been fragmented that provides light to the lost.

The insepid inflitration of marketing into every corner of life, resultant obsession with “the new”, and this century’s rise of “youth culture” as a leading force of society prompt me to to be wary of anything “new” this culture might propose. However, I am aware that just as we ought not throw out every insight given by modernism, so also we must consider the needed and accurate insights offered by the postmodern.

Considering Solomon’s warning that there is nothing new under the sun, I think it more wise to approach our culture in terms of the old as opposed to the new. “Behold, the old is gone, the new has come.” The new is Christ, the new way of salvation and reconcilliation with God made through the cross. Life and the Word seems to teach me that we live going foreward by looking back to the grace and life given us in Christ. Perhaps I am a simpleton, not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of postmodernism, but I find it dangerous to speak of in the language of novelty and emerging. I desire to immitate the One who has come. I admit that culture, language, politics, economics and geography changes, yet I cannot see that human nature or our existential and spiritual needs change.

I need to have my husband spell check this . . .