By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 04 Apr 2005 04:34:16 +0000

by Bill Ekhardt at 08:41PM (PST) on Mar 8, 2005
“This new movement is explicitly far less theological than it’s predecessors.” This has not been my experience at all. In fact, this movement has engaged me theologically more than anything has since seminary. I find it dramatically more theological than the pragmatic texts of the last few decades produced by willow creek and the purpose driven church.
I have enjoyed the interaction of Michael Horton with the Emerging conversation, because he makes explicit the reaction of an early reformed paradigm with the emergent paradigm. As a Presbyterian pastor, my entrance into the emerging conversation has largely been such an engagement. Though I respect Horton's almost disturbing ability to manifest sixteenth century reformed theology, I disagree with many of his assessments.
This may sound like I keep ringing the same bell, but I think Horton is firmly entrenched in that paradigm. It is interesting to see Brian McLaren, for instance through that lens, but I have no desire to be limited by only that lens.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Tyler Watson at 10:36PM (PST) on Mar 8, 2005
I find it hard to say that the emergent church is almost completely flippant towards theology. Like Bill, that hasn't been my experience with the materials. Just taking the lightning rod Brian McLaren's website as an example, under his recommendations for reading he lists works by Miroslav Volf, James McClendon, Walter Brueggemann, Leslie Newbigin, Joel Green, N.T. Wright, and Stanley Grenz, just to name a few. Emergent Village recommends several of the same authors and others including Stanley Hauerwas and Jurgen Moltmann. At the recent Emergent convention, which I did not attend, Stanley Grenz and Richard Foster were some of the speakers/discussion leaders. This does not sound like a movement that is unaware of or glib towards theology in general or systematic theology in particular.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Murdock at 12:18AM (PST) on Mar 9, 2005
Tyler, I think my word choice was poor. Flippancy may entail disdain, and while some in Emergent do have an apparent disdain for theology, it wouldn't be accurate to describe the entire movement this way. The point I was trying to make was that theology is secondary for Emergent. Practice and methodology are primary; that's what their focused on. That's not to say they never talk about theology, only it's downplated, an afterthough, or reduced. Listening to the interviews White Horse Inn played confirms this. They like Newbign for methodlogy, not theology; Foster for practice, Grenz and Hauerwas for philosophy (post-conservatives). Wright and Brueggemann (I don't know the other names) are for theology, but in the grand scheme of things don't play a huge role in Emergent Thought. And I've heard a number of Emergent folk speak of their dislike for systematic theology in particular (one of my pastors included).
Bill, I have some disagreements with Willow Creek and the Purpose Driven Life, but I think they make for more explicit theological claims than the general pantheon of Emergent. Not to say there aren't theologies in Emergent, but they are less emphasized than previous movements. As for Horton, you're criticising him instead of his views (which I mostly agree with). Saying he's “entrenched in that paradigm” is a way to write off his ideas without engaging them. If he's wrong in his assessment please do more than say so, show us where he's wrong and why.
A general clarification- My statements about the de-emphasis of theology in Emergent does not mean I don't believe there are theological implications. In fact, it's the theological implications of Emergent that concern me greatly. The problem is that I have to often decipher their theology in their writings because they don't come on out and say it straight. I would love to find an Emergent author who is up front and clear about their theological views.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Bill Ekhardt at 12:34AM (PST) on Mar 9, 2005
A quick note, I've listened to the White Horse Inn discussion, and I highly recommend it. It's excellent, thoughtful, and shows a Reformed reaction to it.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Tyler Watson at 10:11AM (PST) on Mar 9, 2005
Just finished listening to the radio show. Well done and articulate. Thanks for linking to it. Though I disagree with some of the hosts' conclusions and interpretations, I appreciate their tone and thoughtfulness. Kind of redeems talk radio and Christian radio for me.
I don't think theology is secondary, but that people are trying to embrace a fuller definition of theology, one in which practice and methodology are inherent in theology, not applications of theology. The hosts put their finger on the button that a lot of anabaptist thought is involved in the emergent movement. McLaren's point of ethics comes first then doctrine then witness is taken from the order of James McClendon's (a Mennonite) systematic series. (I've yet to read it, but I am excited to.)
I share the concern of the hosts that this movement is simply a reactionary movement. Many have entered it because of being burned. Now if these brothers and sisters choose to stay in this broken state and remain reactionary – defining themselves against others (as opposed to the Orthodox apophatic approach of defining things by what they are not) – then I have serious problems with the movement as a part of the body of Christ. If, however, they choose to go the constructive route, then there is something more to embrace. And I believe that the emergent conversation has been moving towards a constructive discussion.
The hosts also were right in saying this isn't going to be a denomination. There are evangelical, liberal, and fundamentalist Presbyterians, Baptists, Mennonites, Episcopalians. I have a feeling that the emergent folds just want to add their flavor to the list of modifiers. As McLaren said in his book, this is about a new kind of Christian, not the new kind of Christian.
One last note: I don't think you can limit Grenz or Hauerwas to simply philosophy. Grenz has written a systematic tome and both, when discussing philosophy or ethics are inherently theological in their conversation. Hauerwas is seeking to get ethics to be seen as essential to theology and theology is essential to ethics. They are on the same side of the same coin.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Murdock at 08:01PM (PST) on Mar 9, 2005
I think our disagreement on the place of theology in Emergent has more to do with how we're defining theology. I define theology (as I think most traditionally would) as a type of knowledge, specifically knowledge about spiritual matter. It is a cognitive substance, so to speak. Perhaps Emergent is trying to redefine theology, but in doing so it should be explicit. There is a necessary connection between theology and practice, such that if I believe human beings are made in the image of God (theology), then I should treat them as such (practice). I think Emergent's complaint is that too many Christians/churches/denominations have severed that connection so they don't practice theology. In many cases I find this assessment to be accurate. My concern for Emergent is that in some cases it does practice without theology. The ads for Leonard Sweet's latest book said, “God doesn't want to be known about, He wants to be known.” I don't believe you can have one without the other.
I haven't read Hauerwas, I've only encountered him being discussed in philosophic circles. Grenz is certainly more than theology. Renewing the Center and Revisioning Evangelical Theology are theological works read by the Emergent community. However, I think he's more valued for his philosophic works- A Primer on Postmodernism and Beyond Foundationalism. I would say at best he may be used both theologically and philosophically. Regardless, I would still argue there's a greater focus on practice than on theology.
In regards to being reactionary, I think Micah made a great point on Tim's blog- that much of Emergent seems to be a denial of some theology or practice. They are moving towards constructive discussion; it'll be interesting to see where they end up.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Tyler Watson at 11:53AM (PST) on Mar 10, 2005
I think that we must consider that emergent started as and primarily is an ecclesiological movement. Naturally, the emphasis will be on practice since ecclesiology is one of the most practice-oriented branches of theology proper. That obviously doesn't stop them from making generally theological claims, but it should give us a better perspective with which to critique the movement. The starting point in the discussion has been the church. It's a bottom-up approach. To begin a critique from the perspective of how they view epistemology, theology (as in the study of the Godhead), soteriology, etc., is to miss the point. We must enter the conversation with church, as they have. Let us ask questions and seek understanding about their vision of church first. I think once we understand this issue, we will more greatly understand their other theological claims.
Re: Understanding the Times
by Murdock at 08:32PM (PST) on Mar 10, 2005
That's a good point Tyler. Dan Kimball especially is focused on ecclesiology. However, even when entering the discussion with ecclesiology they bring certain philosophical assumptions with them. I think it ends up being a case by case analysis. With McLaren and Burke there's far more epistemological baggage than with Kimball. Kimball's someone who I haven't found much to disagree with (at least as far as emergent ideology goes). I think you're right that we need to be more focused on the ecclesiological claims, but we also need to recognize when they carry more with them than what's explicitly stated.

Comments on: Understanding the Times

By: Anonymous