This semester in school has been it seems almost providentially arranged, in terms of the three classes that I happen to be taking. Church History 2, Christian Ethics, and Evangelism. At this point in the semester, all three are dealing with the phenomenon of postmodernism and the church's reaction to it. Granted, in Church History 2, we're still in the Reformation period, but there are so many similarities that tie into today's church movement(s) that I can't help draw the lines of connection.
In highly simplistic terms, the Reformation is remembered primarily as a time of PROTEST against the theology and methodology (practice) of the day.
Today, we find ourselves surrounded by "The Emerging Church" and "Emergent Theology," in which the same sort of critiques of the church are taking place. Because both desire to remain definition-less, it is hard to get a handle on what either stands for exactly, but in general the Emerging Church is a movement primarily focused on methods. They critique formalized Christianity (both traditional and contemporary) with all of its impersonal and (sometimes) hypocritical practices. Emergent Theology on the other hand is about reshaping the way we think about our system of beliefs. Really, it's about removing systematizing entirely. Depending on who you talk to, this could flesh itself out as a simple rejection of formal doctrinal statements (with no real ACTUAL rejection of orthodoxy) OR it could involve the reorganization, redefinition, or complete rejection of long-held "truths."
For the sake of time and space, I just want to make two observations related to parallels in these modern movements and the Reformation. One positive and one negative. I'm sure there will be plenty of time in the future to discuss more.
1. Positive - from a positive stand-point, I can completely relate to BOTH trains of thought (at least in part). I remember sitting in the office with Joe Steele (my youth pastor in High School) on many occasions and saying things like, "This PROGRAM just isn't working... we need to scrap it and do something that will reach people." Upon which Joe always replied, "Are you just going to close down the church and forget all that we ARE doing right?" I see the wisdom in his statement, but that still doesn't change the fact that we have good reason for questioning the institutional church and many of it's archaic methods.
I'm not talking about music here. These modern thinkers would place organ-led hymns and rock-and-roll praise music in the same category... it's program... they want relationship and "real-life" change.
The archaic methods I'm referring to are the "come-see" approach to evangelism (as if people had to be in a church building to be reborn in Christ) and the institutionalized form of education. For me, this does not mean a scrapping of formality entirely, but simply a recognition that people learn by interaction and by "taking ownership" of what they believe. The lecture format (including the sermon) can not be the ONLY method we use. If it is, we will lose people in a post-modern culture.
The way this relates to the Protestant Reformation is in how so much of what started this movement was directly related to methods. Things like indulgences (or the selling of grace) and the manipulation of the priesthood's role were outward grievances that drove the Reformers to search the Scriptures for Biblical discrepancies.
---
2. Negative - Following the train of thought in that last statement, my critique of these two movements is that while the Reformation, for most, was a return to the Scriptures as the authority for faith and practice, the ECM and Emergent theology seem to want to place culture as the authority for making critical decisions. For example: When Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin wanted to critique a practice of the current Roman Catholic church, they stated their grievance followed by a Scriptural foundation for that grievance. The Reformation was a refining process with the Bible as the FIRE.
On the other hand, the ECM and Emergent theology both seem to allow culture to be the refining fire, which we all know changes with the latest top-40 song or reality TV show.
Please don't hear me wrong. I believe strongly in the contextualization of the gospel in a given culture (we are ALL missionaries in our town). It's ridiculous to act as if the south is still in the 1950s in our services... not just because the world laughs at us (they're going to do this from time to time anyway) but because we're not speaking their language. It's as if I went to China and expected everyone to learn English, my hymnbook, and my church's operating procedure before I could share the gospel with them.
But the critique is found in the fact that while the postmodern culture holds to no absolute truth, we must part ways in standing on the truth of God's Word. I'm not saying that we have to formulate our statements of faith in the same ways (or to the same degrees) that we have in the past, but, make no mistake, there MUST be statements of faith. And while our methods ABSOLUTELY MUST change (and fast), the gospel (and the core beliefs surrounding it) can not.
As a final note: One of my biggest problems with both the Emerging Church and Emergent theology is that it's mostly about NEGATIVE statements. God has really been convicting me lately about how all of our negative statements about the current condition of the church must be followed up with helpful and constructive positive statements that drive change.
I hope that this growing conviction begins to find its way into my writing. We, who are desiring change in Christ's church, must stop whining about what we DON'T LIKE in the traditional church, and start producing options for those who genuinely want to change. It is to this end that I hope to write in the future.
In Christ,
Andy Duke
No comments:
Post a Comment