Do 'emergent' church, and post-modernist approaches to Christianity, mean that everything goes!?

My friend Jenny posted an incredibly poignant blog entry about the emergent church movement. When it gets down to it does the emergent movement fall apart because of its lack of boundaries?

Read Jenny's post here.

Here's my response to her in which I try to make a case for two contemporary theological movements that seem to inform the emergent church, i.e., post-liberalism and radical orthodoxy:

Hi J,

I agree, this is the tension between 'everything goes', and 'nothing is allowed'.

Every theology comes with an up side and a down side. The up side of the emergent church is that it allows enough freedom for people who have been constrained by, or hurt by, structures and hard nosed ideals to find a place within the faith. The downside is that it lacks enough structure to be safe for those of us who need it.

I have recently been reading in the areas of 'post liberalism' (who are the 'brains' behind the ideas that inspired the emergent movement) and radical orthodoxy (what I perceive to be a further move beyond post liberalism - with the Anglican theologian John Milbank). Both are very popular movements in contemporary theology.

Among the post liberals you have persons such as Hans Frei and George Lidbeck (from Yale), and my favorite - Stanley Hauerwas from Duke.

Check out the following links for some insights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

Whilst there are some shortcomings, this still seems to be the most sensible theology for our time. It is a mistake to think that there are no boundaries in this theology, and that everything goes (that is liberalism, and some would say heresy). Rather, this theology asks 'what is truly orthodox?', and also 'why have we believed certain things to be wrong and others to be right?' i.e., do we still believe that this is where the boundaries should be? Or should they be shifted (as opposed to completely doing away with all boundaries, which seems to be a simplistic liberal approach)?

Rather than being unquestioning, which is what most assume, it is asking MORE rigorous questions in the pursuit of real truth... However, many of us (myself included) often feel a little bit uncomfortable with some of the questions that are asked, and also by who is asking them. The questions are no longer framed by respectable old white men from Europe and America. Now they come from young women, people from the two thirds world, young Americans who dislike their society and don't have jobs... Of course their questions are just as valid as those of the 'old theologians' like myself.

I think that this too will change... These radicals will one day become the establishment and a different process will challenge the same old content when that happens. Then, those people will wish for the days when things were their way once again... I guess that's part of being human. Revolutionise the world until it is your world, then build structures to support it (like the oxymoron of an 'emergent' 'church' - church is establishment (i.e., it has already emerged). You know what I mean!? I hope I've been sensible enough with this.

Of course, all this is great for theology! It pushes the boundaries, and stretches our thoughts... But, it is not so great for a person who has been beaten up.

Rich blessings,

Dion

Comments

[Jenny Hillebrand]

Hi Dion

Thanks for sending visitors to my blog. It's been great to have a few guests. I can't give a very learned response to your comment, because I'm not there yet. But here are some thoughts that I left on my blog in response to your comment:

'I think asking questions and moving boundaries around is great. I think it's cool to look at things from a new perspective. We have to do all these things. And I'm at a stage where I am asking lots of questions about the emergent church. And I ask questions about myself. And I recognise that analysing and systematicising (is that a word?)are not really post-modern. So that we cannot actually define post-modernism because the more we look at it the more out of focus it becomes. And this is so reminiscent of the uncertainty principle of particle physics that it seems like it might be right. And God is bigger than it all and made it all and I enjoy exploring the possiblilities that he has put in our minds. And I look for the truth. And I look for the way of love. I think that's what most of us in the church are doing.'

Jenny

[Wessel Bentley]

Hi Dion

I wonder if we are not actually faced with the question of existentialism and post-existentialism rather than modernism and post-modernism.

From this point of reference, I truly think that calling our worshiping communities "Church" is a case of self-flattery and overestimation. The abuse of his eschatological term is very common, leading to a trend where "church" and "ministries" become interchangeable words in our vocabularies.

I tend to agree with a theologian like Bosch, who differentiates between Church making its business Missio Dei on the one hand and missiones ecclesiae on the other. These two different missiological identities have also been confused and meshed together as if they are the same thing.

The question of post-existentialism asks the question whether what we perceive to be reality, and by default, truth, is actually as real and truthful as we think. This becomes the premise for the modernist/post-modernist debate. Furthermore, there are modernist existentialism and modernist post-existentialism etc.

The question of the "emergent church" as you correctly states is not the creation of something new, but a kind of reformation (excuse the pun).

OK gotta go and tell people about Mr Jesus. Will add some more thoughts later.

Travel safely.

[David]

Hi,

I am busy listening to the audio book "A generous Orthodoxy" and I am finding it very stimulating. For a plebeian theologian it is introducing me to more contemporary theological thought and it is helping me breath easy to know that others are caught between the polemic of Conservative and Liberal and find little place else to go. I have not finished so I am not equipped to comment on the book. I am interested to know how one can adopt an eclectic approach to all the theological traditions he shares with us. My brain often feels like an emerging chick pressing up against a hard calloused shell of worn tradition.

Thanks

[Dave]

Good news! Da Carson who has written a book on 'being conversant with emergent' with both pros and cons will be coming to Malaysia in Oct 2007