Modern Reformation #4: Experiencing Emergent by Shane Rosenthal
July 23, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Shane Rosenthal went to this year’s Emergent Church
convention down in San Diego to figure out what it’s all about. He put his
experiences in print in this month’s issue of Modern Reformation. He was also
interviewed about it on Issues Etc. back in April, the audio is listed on April
24th.
Mr. Rosenthal recounts his impressions of the conference-
the music, hairstyles, and atmosphere. “The average conference attendee
appeared to be a suburban white male, between the ages of eighteen and thirty.
Of course, he was a little more hip than average, often sporting a tattoo, body
piercing, and mustache-free goatee.” (29)
He talked to several people about why they were and there
and what it was all about. “I asked Sally Morganthaler, a popular author and
worship leader in Emergent circles, about the use of these learning techniques
that reminded me of elementary school [“arts and crafts, projectors and small
group share sessions”]. She said, “Yes, it’s a constructivist methodology, so
we’re utilizing some of the newer adult learning theory that’s out there now.””
(29)
Not really satisfied he understood what was going on, Mr.
Rosenthal attended Tim Keel’s seminar “What is Emergent?” Apparently the seminar
was mostly an interactive biography of the people in the room. When it did
start going somewhere substantive, Tim Keel began saying some increasingly
disturbing things… “People call and they want our doctrinal statement and I
refuse to give one out. You know why? Because its shorthand. It says, Oh,
that’s the kind of community you are.” (32)
“He spoke candidly about his idea that evangelism was a
myth, and that we’re not really called to go reach or target people. “I don’t
believe in any of those things, because what it does is make the church about
something. I believe that what we are called to do is have an experience of
God, an experience of Christ that at the primary level shapes our identity as
beloved.””(34) Several people expressed frustration about not getting it. Mr.
Keel agreed that it’s tough, stating, “any church that is being animated by
God’s Spirit ought to be freakin’ messy.” (34)
Mr. Rosenthal leaves some great points in summary. First,
Emergent’s criticisms of modernistic Evangelicalism is often valid. “Having
failed to define ourselves by Christ’s story, our churches look like
entertainment centers, self-help seminars, political rallies, and Kiwanis
clubs. Most of us do not really know the person in the pew sitting next to us,
and we have failed to live noticeably different lives than those of our
non-Christian neighbors.” (35)
However, Emergent’s not much better. “I fear the
Emergent Church fails to give us much lasting benefit. Labyrinths, yoga, and
prayer sculpting (to give only a few examples) might make us feel better for
the moment, but we need medicine of a stronger sort. Burning incense might help
cover up the dark smell of a church facility, but it will not ultimately lead
to reformation… We need Christ: We need to be caught up in his story,
rather than our own. We need to better understand his Word and his
mission for the church, not our own Cain-like attempts at Spirituality.” (35)
Related posts:
- Modern Reformation #5: Emergent Church Roundtable Discussion
- Modern Reformation #1- The Emerging Church by D.A. Carson
- Modern Reformation #2: An Interview with Stanley Grenz
- Modern Reformation #3: Settlers, Pilgrims, and Wanderers by Michael Horton
- Modern Reformation #6: Conversation Partners- An Interview with Brian McLaren
- More on Emergent
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
July 24th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Does Rosenthal offer a constructive argument of his own as he uses Emergent's criticism of the North American church and North American evangelicalism? (I will acknowledge that the scope of the article may just be a simple critique of Emergent.)
I hear a lot of critics say that the emerging church's and Emergent's critiques of the church, modernity, and culture are valid, but Emergent's solutions are misguided and wrong. I have not probed deeply into the literature in a while, but are you aware of an emerging church critic that takes the cultural critique of the emerging church and formulates her or his own possible solutions? My point is that the discussion between the Church as a whole can't go very far if we say to the emerging church, “Your critique is good, but your solutions are bad,” and then offer nothing constructive of our own. I am attracted to the emerging church because they are at least trying to formulate some solutions to address their critique of the church and culture. I resonate with some solutions and disagree with others, but if there is at least an exchange of ideas and a willingness to practically address these issues, then we can move forward together.
July 24th, 2005 at 10:48 am
The scope of the article is describing what he experienced at the Emergent conference. The critique only is his reflections on it on the last page or so.
I haven't seen anyone say specifically- here's what's wrong with EC, here's what we should do instead. Rather, they tend to be treated as two different topics. If you read Al Mohler's blog, he certainly talks about what the church should look like- it just tends not to be in the context of discussing EC. I've done the same thing here on a few occassions.
It's important to recognize that the criticisms of modernity and Evangelicalism are not new, they're not original to EC. We've been talking about the problems for years, see the books The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Power Religion, and Made in America, for example. And it's not as though there hasn't been any solutions offered to reaching out to culture. Some excellent examples are Tell the Truth (edited by D.A. Carson) and Total Truth. As far as I can tell EC has completely ignored the resources already available to them, and I would say these are far better than anything EC has offered.
July 24th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
I agree with Roger, although I want to add that in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which is a critique, Carson has devoted three of eight chapters toward being constructive. Chapter four is, says Carson, “a simplification and updating of a couple chapters of [his] book The Gagging of God“—which Carson wrote in 1996. Carson's final two chapters focus on what Scripture offers us regarding truth and experience. So Carson has offered us some ideas on how to proceed, though I'm not sure the EC has accepted them. As far as the other book-length critique of the EC, Reclaiming the Center, I know that the defense of foundationlism by Moreland and DeWeese also includes a statement in favor of modest foundationalism, which is ignored by much of the EC. I should also add that some of the statements coming from EC folk, such as questions are always better than answers, are such that describing a way forward is a practical impossibility because the whole enterprise of argumentation has been discarded. It is useless to construct something with people who have given up on the whole notion of construction, and there are portions of the EC that have done just that. Regrettably, the many recent advances that have been made in developing a robust, life-changing Christian apologetic in which the truths of the Gospel are embodied both to the glory of God and the benefit of others (such as Tell the Truth, Total Truth, and a host of others) appear to have been dismissed by the likes of Robert Webber, Tony Jones, and Brian McLaren, and they have thrown the apologetic baby out with the modern bathwater.