Emergent Church and the Concerned Nazarenes

Comment by Jim London on February 16, 2010 at 9:32am

Hi, Michael. Your posting caught my attention when I saw the phrase "the Nazarene Church", because I realised right away that I know know so little about the Nazarenes as a denomination, and what distinctions they hold among the larger church. Then I saw the expression "emergent type thinking" and that you associate that with "end days apostacy". That you say, "I want to share more ..." leads me to think that you intend to develop your thread further in subsequent postings. May I make a plea toward you if, indeed, you do present more of your concerns here? My plea, basically, is that you (and others who may participate in the discussion) attempt to proceed by addressing specific lines of thought with which you take issue, rather than label whole sectors of the church with disparging remarks. To me, this is a very important caution when we talk with one another.
For example, the term "emergent" or even "emerging" has become attached to some renewed emphases within the Western wing of the church. At the core of that development is a desire to be "incarnational" and "missional"; that is, to step out of the safe, insular, inwardly-turned orientation that has characterised the "institutional church" and to embody Christ among "post-Christian" Western humanity. This is surely a recovery of two central features of the commission that we have received from Christ, but have forsaken. We have desparately needed that voice within the Western stream of the church! It has come from followers of Christ who have exercised enough honesty and humility to acknowledge that we have drifted far from a fruitful relationship with society, and are attempting to make a correction to that drift. But the terms "emergent" and "emerging" have, in some circles, become hot-button generalised terms to castigate or blacklist almost everything that is taking a form that is different from what we've been used to. A decade ago, almost everything that sounded different to the evangelical ear was being labeled as "new age", even if there was no foundation to most of the accusations. For sure, we need to help each other recognise seduction and deception, but if we employ fuzzy and generalised language toward whole sectors of the church, rather than address specific views and practices that cause us concern, then we needlessly polarize and alienate, shutting down helpful conversation within His church. Better to sit beside one another, prayerfully and with Bibles open, than to shout slogans and epithets at each other across a canyon.
Blessings on you as you seek to articulate your concerns. May the result of your efforts be fruitfulness for the name of Christ.

Comment by Michael Young on February 16, 2010 at 10:32am

Hi, Jim

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you in-as-much that it would make for a good, although lengthy discussion if we would address specific lines of thought with which we take issue. The problem with that approach is that we would easily get lost in the forest of trees-of-thought. I.e., we would engage in endless discussion or arguments and never reach a consensus.

My intention is not to change anyone's mind on this matter of EMERGENT or EMERGING church, but, to inform. I have personal experience and I have first hand knowledge and information.

So, I am not concerned about convincing emergents about their errors or engaging emergents in dialogue or discussion as I am ready with a response. I hope those who are 'spiritual theoreticians', bloggers or religious pundants will add to our discussion. But, I am more interested in talking with Christians who have a biblical worldview and hold to scriptural inerrancy. I want to talk with those who are involved daily in our churches, schools, colleges and workplace who are CONCERNED about the onslaught of liberal theology or new-thought (emergent) spiritualism.

Finally, we agree on one other point when you say there are "followers of Christ who have exercised enough honesty and humility to acknowledge that we have drifted far from a fruitful relationship with society, and are attempting to make a correction to that drift." The emergents have skillfully identified the PROBLEMS with the last few decades of 'evangelical drift and neglect', BUT their solutions are mostly left-wing ideology and recent-culture and new-age religion (Gnosticism) clothed in the respectable language and garments of Christianity.

We all agree that we should follow (aka DO) the teachings of Christ. But that is where our agreements diverge.

I look forward to talking with you more. I plan on posting a simple to read "Twenty identifying traits of an emergent philosophy" and what to DO about it.

Let's remain In HIS Grip

Comment by Jim London on February 16, 2010 at 3:50pm

Michael, I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond to my concern about how we speak. I can only do my best in attempting to urge an effort at being specific and at choosing other than inflamatory rhetoric. Please allow me to make a few further comments on this:
You say "My intention is ... to inform. I have personal experience and I have first hand knowledge and information." Whenever we set out to inform, humility is extremely important. It's so important to realize that our personal experience, first hand knowledge and information is very limited indeed. That's true for every one of us. We usually equate "a biblical world view" and "scriptural inerrancy" with the view that we and our closest associates espouse -- often realizing at some later point in our life that were under-informed or seriously misdirected by ghetto bias. That doesn't mean that we merely cease to be vigilant. But it means that we not savage people with our strongly-held views, and that we own up to the fact that we carry a culture-shaped slant into every exchange of ideas. No one is exempt from bias, no matter how earnest they are about their views. That does not mean that there is no right or wrong -- there certainly is! But we need to continually speak from the assumption that we may not own the franchise on the full truth.

Further, the larger populace are witnesses to our manner. Please know that the angry, label-spouting tirades that are delivered by some of the "conservative" voices carried over broadcast media and through highly marketed publications have done as much to create disillusionment with what the conservative voice represents, as have the high-profile moral failures of church leaders. Outsiders to the kingdom of God are appalled to hear church folks castigating others with broad accusations of apostacy, blasphemy, etc. It is too easy to type-cast/ stereotype and then blast at the strawman. Language like "left-wing ideology" is much too undefined for discussion purposes, and, I suggest, carries more emotive weight than it does clarity of thought.

I have a suggestion, which I make primarily out of love for the purposes of God through His church. Would you at least consider, when you post the "twenty traits", leaving out an umbrella label for the collection of views or practices that you want to focus on? I mean, forgo labelling the collection with a term like "emerging" or "emergent". I'm suggesting this, because using such a term goes beyond your intention, and tars all the people who are associated with that tag with allegations that do not necessarily belong to them all. I'll go out on a limb and say that, whenever any of us indiscriminantly smear others in such a way, the result will be exceedingly counter-productive.
Again, I speak blessing over you -- that your concern for truth and for the health of the church will be expressed in a way that builds His people.

Comment by Michael Young on February 16, 2010 at 9:48pm

Thanks again for your suggestions, Jim. But, please relax. You seem to be over-anticipating or worrying how I might describe my views in relation to what you or others think or feel.

I say this because the LANGUAGE in your reply to me is counter to your request OF me: that I temper the language in my remarks so they do not "carry more emotive weight than it does clarity of thought". Then you proceed to use emotive and inflammatory language to describe how you feel about my remarks.

For example, you use the phrase "under-informed or seriously misdirected by ghetto bias" when referring to my previous post.

You then say by inference that I "may not own the franchise on the full truth" which seems to assume that I might think I have such a franchise.

Then you suggest that my phrase 'left-wing ideology' which I put within parenthesis "carries more emotive weight than it does clarity of thought". Ouch!

It seems like you are trying to do to me what you are asking me NOT TO DO IN THE FUTURE, which is anticipating or interpreting what may be MEANT before it is said - or worse - to restrict expressive thought by advance condemnation.

None-the-less, I will remember what you have said as I attempt to define the emergent philosophy and to offer what I consider a biblical response.

This is important to me (and many others who deal with this matter on a practical level every day) because when anyone uses errant philosophies or untried doctrines to guide their lives they may get results that plaque their lives.

I consider many of the emergent philosophies an experiment with a "NEW KIND OF CHRISTIANITY" as Brian McLaren likes to put it, which are nothing more than socially liberal interpretations of the Christian Gospel - and I believe for the most part, are ideologically "left-wing", which I will explain and enumerate later.

But, for now, let's please relax and let each other have our say - without condemning. My suggestion and request is that we express ourselves in truth, and not argue. We don't need to correct one another. Just state our case and let it speak for itself.

Thanks again - I am looking forward to a continuing dialouge. And blessing to you also.

Comment by Jim London on February 16, 2010 at 11:09pm

Hi, Michael. Thanks again for continuing the dialogue with me. Texting a dialogue is a challenge, isn't it? Tone of voice, gestures, eyes -- so many devices that we use to comminicate nuance -- aren't available. Let me point out that when I used the pronoun "we", to refer to common experience in which we all share, I meant only we in order to be inclusive of myself and most others. So when you reshaped my words thus in your reply, For example, you use the phrase "under-informed or seriously misdirected by ghetto bias" when referring to my previous post. You then say by inference that I "may not own the franchise on the full truth" which seems to assume that I might think I have such a franchise., I can't take ownership for that.
I do believe, however, that "language like 'left-wing ideology' is much too undefined for discussion purposes, and, I suggest, carries more emotive weight than it does clarity of thought" because it is a catch-all phrase for so many political/ theological/ philosphical views and postures, and consequently does not specify the particular issue while it is being used, as far as I can tell, to incite negative reception at an emotional level.

But you are wise to point out to me that I may be judging too quickly how you will frame what you intend to say. My concern is informed, however, by what is available in your first post, where you name people publicly and declare their statements without relating the context of their statements. When their statements stand baldly in text, there will be a constituency of readers on this site who will be alarmed. However, for each statement, I can think of a variety of scenarios or contexts within which all of those statements attributed to the folks whom you've named, would make perfect sense to virtually every conservative, evangelical/ Pentecostal follower of Christ, without a blink.
I'm not afraid of any exploration of any ideas or doctrine or practice. As the Body of Christ, we need to be engaging each other, helping each other in discernment, attempting to fill in the gaps in each others' learning, etc. My concern is that we be careful of how we do that. And, as you've attempted to show me, I'm also not entirely adequate to the task!
Thank you very much, Michael, for expressing an openness to being specific rather than painting a whole movement with the same brush. McLaren has caught people's attention, but he does not speak on all points for a huge mass of people who want to live the incarnational/ missional lifestyle, which itself is considered in many quarters to be left-wing, because it is often characterised by radical social justice efforts. It can also be said of McLaren, even in theologically conservative circles, that he says some things that every stripe of believer should listen to.
I've entered this blog thread because there is an opportunity here to learn and model how deeply-felt convictions can be processed with fruitfulness. It also has implications for how we are viewed by a watching world -- can they listen in and discover an arena of engagement that is really quite different from anywhere else, in the manner by which it is conducted?
So, in my own way, perhaps i'm doing just as you have suggested toward the end of your previous post: "Just state our case and let it speak for itself."
We are both children of the Father, followers of and joint heirs with Christ, indwelt by the Spirit of God. And we have much more than that which we share!

Comment by Michael Young on February 17, 2010 at 5:49am

Michael M(Manila) -

GREAT question to ask in order to establish context. And thank you for the opportunity to engage the subject of postmodernism But, WOW. If there ever was a "deep well" that is potentially ambiguous, this is IT! It has the ability to take us far from the subject I broached which started our discussion.

In order to illustrate the potential, here are the first few paragraphs from Wikipedia defining Postmodernism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism )

"Postmodernism literally means 'after the modernist movement'. While "modern" itself refers to something "related to the present", the movement of modernism and the following reaction of postmodernism are defined by a set of perspectives. It is used in critical theory to refer to a point of departure for works of literature, drama, architecture, cinema, journalism and design, as well as in marketing and business and in the interpretation of history, law, culture and religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (as in Giddens, 1990) as postmodernity. In other words, postmodernism is the "cultural and intellectual phenomenon", especially since the 1920s' new movements in the arts, while postmodernity focuses on social and political outworkings and innovations globally, especially since the 1960s in the West.

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary refers to postmodernism as "a style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions."[1]

The term postmodern is described by Merriam-Webster as meaning either "of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one" or "of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)", or finally "of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language".[2]

The American Heritage Dictionary describes the meaning of the same term as "Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes: “It [a roadhouse] is so architecturally interesting ... with its postmodern wooden booths and sculptural clock”.[3]"

And the article goes on to say, "Whether ‘postmodernism’ is seen as a critical concept or merely a buzzword, one cannot deny its range. D*** Hebdige, in his ‘Hiding in the Light’ illustrates this:

When it becomes possible for a people to describe as ‘postmodern’ the décor of a room, the design of a building, the diegesis of a film, the construction of a record, or a ‘scratch’ video, a television commercial, or an arts documentary, or the ‘intertextual’ relations between them, the layout of a page in a fashion magazine or critical journal, an anti-teleological tendency within epistemology, the attack on the ‘metaphysics of presence’, a general attenuation of feeling, the collective chagrin and morbid projections of a post-War generation of baby boomers confronting disillusioned middle-age, the ‘predicament’ of reflexivity, a group of rhetorical tropes, a proliferation of surfaces, a new phase in commodity fetishism, a fascination for images, codes and styles, a process of cultural, political or existential fragmentation and/or crisis, the ‘de-centring’ of the subject, an ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’, the replacement of unitary power axes by a plurality of power/discourse formations, the ‘implosion of meaning’, the collapse of cultural hierarchies, the dread engendered by the threat of nuclear self-destruction, the decline of the university, the functioning and effects of the new miniaturised technologies, broad societal and economic shifts into a ‘media’, ‘consumer’ or ‘multinational’ phase, a sense (depending on who you read) of ‘placelessness’ or the abandonment of placelessness (‘critical regionalism’) or (even) a generalised substitution of spatial for temporal coordinates - when it becomes possible to describe all these things as ‘postmodern’ (or more simply using a current abbreviation as ‘post’ or ‘very post’) then it’s clear we are in the presence of a buzzword.[15]"

Some of the notable philosophical and literary contributors to Postmodern thinking are Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. With their emphasis on skepticism, especially concerning objective reality, social morals, and societal norms[19], all three philosophers, for the postmodernists, represent a reaction to modernism ending in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Other notable influences on postmodernism include Laurence Sterne's novel Tristram Shandy, Alfred Jarry's 'Pataphysics, and the work of Lewis Carroll. These folks are described, even by the most liberal cynics today, as left-wing socialists.

Further, the articles says "The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality."

And the article concludes with these quotes "In 1994, the then-President of the Czech Republic and renowned playwright Václav Havel gave a hopeful description of the postmodern world as one based on science, and yet paradoxically “where everything is possible and almost nothing is certain.”[20]

Josh McDowell & Bob Hostetler offer the following definition of postmodernism: “A worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.” Truth is “created by the specific culture and exists only in that culture. Therefore, any system or statement that tries to communicate truth is a power play, an effort to dominate other cultures."


So, now to your question "Are you at all sympathetic to postmodernism and the indictments its adherents (including many EMERGENT folks) bring against particularly western industrialized society? How can I answer that without an adequate and complete understanding of the INTENT of your question?

So, with great risk, I will assume that you are referring to the context of Emergent philosophies from a socialist point of view.

If that is the case, my answer: I may be sympathetic to certain "indictments" by postmodernists against "western industrialized society" (a term found specifically in socialist and communist manifesto documents) but, I am wearied by the broad scope of the subject.

I am not interested debating a POSTMODERN view of politics or Christianity. And, I am especially not interested in the POLITICS OF CHRISTIANITY.

I am interested in addressing and arresting the "neglect and drift" of Evangelical Christianity (and the American Version of Christianity specifically). The Christian Message, the GOOD NEWS, of Christ is a simple yet powerful message. If true, it changed the world and still has that potential.

But, the MESSAGE has been deliberately reconstructed, reapplied commercially, and is being marketed and sold for material gain and profit. I vomit at the thought! For the artist, it is like giving a Masterpiece to a child with a crayon and saying "entertain yourself while mommy and daddy talk".

I hope I haven't offended you. I know my remarks have been passionate. But, I believe the message and philosophies of the emergent movement and the worldwide religious humanist movements are a direct response to the utter failure of the modern church leaders.

Where Christian leaders have veered from the Course and left a void, the emergents have entered.

The human condition has certain needs: We need to experience and express both an internal and external peace; we stay healthy by living out the joys of life; we will die without being able to love and to be loved; we have a shared longing for kindness; we search for goodness and justice; we beg for patience and understanding as we attempt to grow and discover; we need a faithfulness that nurtures the human soul; and hope for the self control to share with one another instead of consuming for ourselves only. These are my concerns.

This has been, as someone said, an insufferably long reply. But, be certain that I do not want to compete with you. I will, however, complete the task I have started. If you find it disagreeable, please suffer me at the least.

In His Service and His Grip!

Comment by Michael Young on February 17, 2010 at 11:21am

Right and Right On! Thank you.

I hope to talk with you again soon.

Comment