I've sat in a course all week with Tony Jones on the Emergent Church. Here is my perspective...
1. I don't see a great deal of fundamental difference between the Emergent movement and what healthy churches have been trying to do for a long time. (Oh, there are differences. It is true.)
2. Tony likes to shock people. This is probably because he has presented his material in many settings where he was attacked or where he needed to shock listeners out of lethargy.
3. This is a contextual theology for the postmodern world that really is not harmful, radical, nor unchristian. Unfortunately, there have been some characterizations of the emergent movement by some Christians which has polarized the field. If we don't listen to each other and each other's nuances, communication quickly deteriorates.
4. The Emergent church is also called the Missional church by some. Each person who gathers comes to worship and the returns to his/her daily mission. That isn't too different from what we hear on many churches. Missional churches are working hard at promoting social justice issues and transforming culture. But, I would like to see more investment in parts of the world that need help developing ecclesial theology (community reflection) for training Christians in what it means to live the Christian life. (I do teach at a theological training institution.)
Those are some of my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I've told you my theory about the Emergent Church but I'll post here in cyberspace to see what others think:
The Emergent Church is really a highly contextualized form of Christianity to reach the postmodern generation. Why they feel the need to reinvent the wheel in some cases escapes me at times. However, I think that a lot of the effort that is put into defining this movement comes from a lack of pride, sense of accomplishment and achievement from other areas of life.
Over the last century, there have been defining moments for each generation in the United States. Early in the 20th century people dealt with World War I . The next generation dealt with the Great Depression. The next generation wrestled with World War II. The next generation had the Civil Rights movement. The next generation had the Cold War. In each case there was a relatively clear problem that the generation, as a whole, was able to address and achieve victory. There was something that, as they got older, they were able to tell their children and grandchildren, "I was a part of that."
What does this generation have? Not too much. So to create a sense of accomplishment, maybe this generation will redefine what church is and make it meet the needs of postmodernity.
Almost nothing in my argument has substance or support but that's one of the luxuries of living in a postmodern world. As long as it works for me I'm good.
Oh, and I have a theory about the causes of today's problems in society based on the hippies but that's for another day.
You continue to A-maze me. While I agree that this is a highly contextualized form of Christianity for the postmodern culture; and I, too, am bewildered why the movement insists on reinventing the wheel.
I would rather says that there is a reaction, here, to the megachurch loss of community. Or, rather, these are people who have not fit in the traditional form of church (and assume that no one can fit in the traditional form of church...for some reason) but are trying to do the same things as healthy traditional church but with different forms.
That is why I don't have much against it.
it was great to have you in class, Matthew.
Post a Comment