Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Emergent Theology?
I have been reading a lot recently on the emerging church. I have posted links on this site and referenced a number of the other weblogs also discussing this. I have also taken the step of thinking outside of the online community and started cross referencing some ideas and thoughts with other people.
Here are some basics that I think need to be successfully dealt with for this "new" phenomenon to really survive ("There is nothing new under the sun" Eccl 1:9)
I would love to see your comments, and will myself add to this in the future as I think through it more.
Theology
Theology (or the study of God) is broken into many schools of thought. There are major schools of thought and within each there are splinter groups. For the emerging church to be truly trans-denominational than a lot of these schools of thought will need to be harmonious (at least on the major items). Note I didn't say all. I believe there are some schools of thought that are heretical, and would not therefore fit into this mold. These would be self evident by their unwillingness to join the ranks and agree to agree.
Standards and principles (beliefs)
I think that there must be some compulsory belief statements. Some will hold their hands up in horror, but I stand by this. The Bible is clear that there are certain issues on which we must be clear. I'll take a stand and say no to gay clergy, (not no to gay members), no to liberal theology that does not hold the whole of the Bible as the revealed word of God, No to cults that add their own "inspired" piece of dogma, and not to anti-biblical and anti-God attitudes and practices. Eg Moloch worshippers, pagan rituals and other occultist practices. There are more but you get the idea. The Bible is clear on these matters, and I have no problem stating these as fact.
There is a thought that the Emerging church must have an emerging theology; that is redefine theology. I disagree. We have 2000 years of church history and many creeds and confessions that define statements of belief for us, the Westmnister Confession of Faith and the Nicene Creed, the London Baptist Confession and many others. The emerging church needs to identify itself, not with one of these, but with most of them, and from there define itself by its other qualities of community and tradition.
Community
One of the criticisms leveled at the traditional church structures are their lack of relevancy to the masses. 10% of Australia regularly attends church on a Sunday. What do the other 90% do? Why don't they attend, when 50 years ago over 50% attended. Is it really lack of relevancy, or is it simply apostasy and agnosticism. I would suspect a mixture of the tow, and would go as far as to say that the emerging church will still not be relevant to all or even most of the population. Yet we must realise that a cultural battle has been fought and largely won by the anti-Christian culture, in most cases without the Christians even knowing it was going on. That is why I agree with Gary North that the battle that Mel Gibson has started is a battle for the culture of our western nations.
So an emerging church has the chance to develop its own community, of ordinary everyday people, waitresses and barmen, students and teachers, plumbers and electricians, public servants and taxi drivers. Relevance will come from meeting where they are at, authenticity will come from adherence to the Biblical standards and principles espoused above.
Leadership
Alan makes a valid point regarding the superstructures of institutionalised churches, and the power corruption that can occur. Here's his final comment on the linked post "That's why when we read the New Testament we find no evidence of denominational superstructures; we find no complex hierarchy. We find the local church overseen by elders. When we go beyond that we'll always run into trouble."
Local community should have local leadership. Leadership comes from within the community and is chosen according to the New Testament principles for Godly leadership found in Timothy and Titus. Anything else is to suggest we know better.
Tradition (or practices)
Just as people relate to anecdotal stories when learning, so communities, whether they be churches, sport clubs. community minded lions clubs or even extended families, have traditions that they feel comfortable with. These create a sense of identity and belonging that help people connect. Initiation ceremonies are a way of enforcing tradition upon newcomers. I'm not suggesting initiation here, rather well thought out practices that become traditions We don't have to look too far for the obvious, the sacraments, the Lords supper or whatever name you know it by is the most obvious, singing songs and praising God also. Each community will find its own idiosyncrasies will turn into traditions. The key to remember is that tradition for tradition's sake is largely meaningless. Tradition is merely a method of connection, and should not be performed as a ritual or by rote. Rather it should be like a comfortable old pair of slippers; slipped on to provide the function of warmth.
There are probably a few other major headings, and I will not pretend that I have either covered all of the major topics, or even covered these well. Rather I am laying out for discussion a number of items for discussion and debate. Feel free to comment.
