About Me
Social
BOOK REVIEW : WHY WE'RE NOT EMERGENT
/
1 Comments
"You can be young, passionate about Jesus Christ, surrounded by diversity, engaged in a postmodern world, reared in evangelicalism and not be an emergent Christian. In fact, I want to argue that it would be better if you weren’t.” This is the premise on which Why We're Not Emergent : By Two Guys Who Should Be is founded. I would say that I was interested in the book because I don't find myself falling in the Emergent category. Not based on any discord or tension with people within it, just simply because it doesn't seem like the church for me. I think if anything, I've found myself to be New Orthodox (or Neuthodox as I may start to call it). The traditions of the church are founded within the greatest moments within Christian history so it takes a little CPR to get them back and going (hence my adhering in some measure to Lent and Advent, the creeds, hymns, communion, celebration of disciplines, etc). It's brought a lot of life to me recently so I don't find a need to distance myself from it. Growing up outside of evangelicalism is probably the sources of that, but I wouldn't credit all of it that. I've even had some fun with friends within the Emergent church. One of the rules within theBURN is no alcohol / tobacco / drugs / firearms. When Ryan Joy (former youth leader) was transitioning from theBURN to a new Emergent church within the town, I said "if anyone has any alcohol, tobacco, drugs or firearms to turn them into Ryan and he'll be able to use them at his church." We had a good laugh.
In true Emergent fashion, I was looking to this book for "conversation." I was wondering what a couple other guys within the target audience would say when faced with why they aren't Emergent. I did find plenty of that. The books is filled with why they're not Emergent. However, what I think is missing is any redeeming quality about it. The Church is notorious for theological differences causing great divisions. This feels much the same. When two sides oppose each other, you find one thing in common : each side blows the arguments of the side WAY out of proportion (let alone de-contexualizing it). I have no doubts within the Emergent movement there are plenty who are missing the mark. This is something that has been with the Church since the beginning. Having read some of the authors (and understanding the motives by which they were writing) which the two above critique, I find that what the goal was massively distorted in what was presented within the pages of Why We're Not Emergent. Two authors in particular, Rob Bell and Erwin McManus (I would reference you to articles on Wikipedia but they would have the same arguments posted and missing the context of what both were trying to say), were ones that I thought were thrown under the bus. The same issues were brought up and yet again I thought that those on the "attacking" end had no context with which they were operating. I have no doubts if someone extracted words that I've said while speaking that people would find holes within my theology. Hopefully, when taking intent and the entirety of my message, they wouldn't. It's amazing how the practices of biblical interpretation work magnificently when reading through other works as well.
There was one chapter that I found especially redeeming and if it had made the whole of the book, the book wouldn't have been that long, but it would have changed the heart completely. I like the personalization of missing it, instead of you are and we aren't. In the final chapter, the authors work through the churches of Revelation and find common ground for all of us to work on. When the personalization of missing it is brought home to us all, it made it all the more refereshing. Here are a couple of quotes to get you going on some thoughts from the book that I liked (or hated) and you will either be driven to read or convinced all the more why you should stay away.
"In general, it's easier to be against something than stand for something."
“I wasn’t looking for the guys with the biggest project screens, the coolest ‘gathering place,’ or the best film discussions. I was looking for a theology and a body that I could give my life to and entrust with my children. The reason I love Christianity and the Bible is that I think they are really the only things in this world that don’t need to be periodically ‘repainted’ or reframed.”
“If our own subjectivity is quarantined against scrutiny, how then will we ever develop a judicious sense of the relation between Christ and culture?”
“If it is true that where you are finding ‘passion and love and exhilaration’ there ‘you are finding God,’ Christianity has no unique message to give the world.”
“It’s true that the gospel has social implications. But the social gospel is something else entirely.”
“Divine mercy without divine wrath is meaningless.”
“The idea that people read much of anything and have their minds changed by it is less and less realistic to me. People, usually just dig in.”
I think the last sentence rings true. Both sides of Emergent vs non-emergent are on the attack of the other. There are even quotes within the Emergent church that say (to the effect), "I'd rather be wrong with [insert Emergent teacher here] than right with [Orthodox teacher here]." I didnt' find much joy in any of this conversation when I was at CBC. I thought it was so fruitless and dividing that I would much rather do my own thing than get caught up in a theological discussion. However, as I've found distance from academia, I've found the need for such discussion. To not be held accountable to the whole community of Christ (both past and present) would be to go off on your own whims and never have any balance. I think the ministry of the church is both to teach AND to correct. If we can't come to correction and well as our pursuit of truth to teach, then we are missing the genius of the AND. We, being physical and emotional (as well as spiritual), have the propensity to jump off a cliff if it's feeling good. To find we are incorrect in such an action, and that it would lead to death, would be something we would all like to hear. I think both sides of Orthodox vs Emergent, old church vs new church, all need to come under the umbrella of truth and love. We all find ourselves in the same place. We want to live wholly and fully for Christ within our current context. We need more love AND more truth. We need more social action AND more holiness. It's not either / or. It's both AND. This book got me thinking in a direction. For that, I give it some points. However, like most Christian dialogue, it usually ends up sounding like me vs you, us vs them. That, I cannot enjoy.
Why We're Not Emergent : C-
----------------
Now playing: Thrice - Silhouette
