I read a very telling article over the weekend at Evangel: Emerging from Emergent Church Evangelicalism. The article is vintage Evangel, which means that it is basically an argument in support of one religious tradition over another. The token Lutheran contributor starts off saying this is not a plug for Lutheranism and then proceeds to…put in a plug for Lutheranism. What is borderline dishonest about it is that the argument perpetuates the myth of the “either-or” when it comes to the church.
The false “either-or” argument says that either you are part of the amorphous emergent church movement and therefore deny the core truths of the Gospel or you are left with the same old tradition bound, program driven church. There is no in-between.
Here is how this trick works. You stake out two positions, one the orthodox church and the other the emergent church. It works pretty well because most of us don’t know anything about the emergent church and know nothing other than the traditional church. The emerging movement is shadowy, confusing and unsettling. It makes a convenient bogeyman and pejorative. The traditional church is warm, safe, familiar and comfortable. You stake these two positions with a World War I-esque “no man’s land” in between. Then you paint the emergent church in the worst possible light, referencing people like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. The emergent movement makes this pretty easy by tolerating all sorts of foolishness and rank heresy. What is left is not so much a defense of the traditional church model as it is a choice between the same old, same old and the new, scary and perhaps heretical emergent movement.
With the two sides encamped across a scarred landscape, it can seem like you need to be in one camp or the other. Not true. I would humbly say that I am as orthodox as anyone I know on issues like the authority of Scripture, justification, etc. That doesn’t mean that I or anyone else must choose between a simple, community based vision of the church and Biblical orthodoxy. I have a great deal of sympathy for some aspects of the emerging movement while rejecting much of its theological liberalism. Likewise, I stand firmly alongside my orthodox, especially Reformed, brothers on the Gospel while simultaneously suggesting that many of the traditional views of the church are flawed.
Don’t let people pigeonhole you. Don’t let them create false either-or choices. What matters is not what is “emergent” versus what is “traditional”. What matters, all that matters, is what is Scriptural. Every belief, every doctrine, every practice must stand up to the scrutiny of the Word of God and whatever is found wanting, no matter how long we have practiced it or who says it is the best way, must be discarded. It is a matter of trust. Do you trust the Bible and the One who authored it or not?
The false “either-or” argument says that either you are part of the amorphous emergent church movement and therefore deny the core truths of the Gospel or you are left with the same old tradition bound, program driven church. There is no in-between.
Here is how this trick works. You stake out two positions, one the orthodox church and the other the emergent church. It works pretty well because most of us don’t know anything about the emergent church and know nothing other than the traditional church. The emerging movement is shadowy, confusing and unsettling. It makes a convenient bogeyman and pejorative. The traditional church is warm, safe, familiar and comfortable. You stake these two positions with a World War I-esque “no man’s land” in between. Then you paint the emergent church in the worst possible light, referencing people like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. The emergent movement makes this pretty easy by tolerating all sorts of foolishness and rank heresy. What is left is not so much a defense of the traditional church model as it is a choice between the same old, same old and the new, scary and perhaps heretical emergent movement.
With the two sides encamped across a scarred landscape, it can seem like you need to be in one camp or the other. Not true. I would humbly say that I am as orthodox as anyone I know on issues like the authority of Scripture, justification, etc. That doesn’t mean that I or anyone else must choose between a simple, community based vision of the church and Biblical orthodoxy. I have a great deal of sympathy for some aspects of the emerging movement while rejecting much of its theological liberalism. Likewise, I stand firmly alongside my orthodox, especially Reformed, brothers on the Gospel while simultaneously suggesting that many of the traditional views of the church are flawed.
Don’t let people pigeonhole you. Don’t let them create false either-or choices. What matters is not what is “emergent” versus what is “traditional”. What matters, all that matters, is what is Scriptural. Every belief, every doctrine, every practice must stand up to the scrutiny of the Word of God and whatever is found wanting, no matter how long we have practiced it or who says it is the best way, must be discarded. It is a matter of trust. Do you trust the Bible and the One who authored it or not?
1 comment:
Don’t let people pigeonhole you. Don’t let them create false either-or choices. What matters is not what is “emergent” versus what is “traditional”. What matters, all that matters, is what is Scriptural. Every belief, every doctrine, every practice must stand up to the scrutiny of the Word of God and whatever is found wanting, no matter how long we have practiced it or who says it is the best way, must be discarded. It is a matter of trust. Do you trust the Bible and the One who authored it or not?
Arthur, these are some very true, and sobering words. A very well written post. Thanks!
Post a Comment