Emerging Problems

It is no secret that the Emergent movement is a protest against traditional church. The problem with Emergents is that aside from some commonality with respect to their attempts to engage the enigma known as Postmodernism, and a few common practices in the expression of worship, the movement is ill-defined, lacking in theological formation, and is driven by pragmatism rather than principle.

When one attempts to explore the tenants of the Emergent movement, one finds a plethora of voices all claiming to speak for the movement. There are many who are ready to rush into the leadership void, and a few have already claimed that mantle for themselves. They have attempted to set the agenda and when others on the fringe make claims for the Emergent movement they are dismissed because they do not align with a movement that is seeking to liberate church from the confines of creeds and doctrines, boundaries and bonds of traditionalism. Yet, one finds that the logic of Emergent church becomes quite circular and self-serving.

For example, in one message board, an inquirer is shocked at some statements of a self-proclaimed Emergent, but the views of this Emergent are dismissed because they don’t represent the mainline view of the movement. Sez who? Sez the people who claim to be the spokesmen/women for Emergents.

They cannot point to any consistent theology because it is still in formation (or in their words “reformation”). They cannot state what they are, only what they are not. They are not traditional (as they define traditional), they are not linear in their approach to thinking and communicating, they are not modernists, they are not positivists, they are not bound by the dogma of previous generations, they are not limited to previous exegetical approaches to Scripture, they are not churchy, and they are not hierarchical in organizational structure (unless you disagree with the self-ascribed leadership).

The Emergent movement is driven by pragmatism because, by their own admission, it is a movement that is targeting the Postmodern generation. The foundational question is not biblically based, but is culturally driven, it is the question of what do we have to do to reach this generation. A principle driven movement begins with biblically based foundational premises, but the Emergent church is prepared to place clear biblical principles on the shelf while they wrestle with what it will take to appeal to the Postmoderns.

For example, in Scripture the issue of homosexuality is unambiguously addressed as a perversion of human conduct that is completely inconsistent with the biblical example of Christ, Pauline teaching, Old Covenant and New Covenant stipulations. Yet, because the Postmoderns are more open to alternate lifestyles, Brian McLaren is willing to put the issue of homosexuality on hold, to set it aside for a few years before taking a position. Pragmatism does not ask what is right, but what works. Admittedly, many churches are operating from this same paradigm, so how is Emergent any different from the form of church they reject?

Again, fresh expressions of worship are always welcomed. A renewed desire for an experiential relationship with God is certainly appropriate. A willingness to look at Scripture with culturally unbiased eyes for a contemporary word from God is a good thing. But the Emergent movement, as I read it in Sweet, McLaren, et al, is not as much about reformation of Protestantism or Pentecostalism, but it is, in their minds, as much of a protest against current Christianity as Protestantism was against Catholicism. In the words of Erwin McManus, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.”

I am wary of those who drape their own shoulders with the mantle of leadership and then define reality through their own eyes. As one poster on a message board argued, “I am the authority for what the Emergent church really is. Ask me, don’t search for yourself.”