In recent months I've been thinking a lot about a certain form of ungracious, unfair criticism that circulates within Christian conversation, often parading itself as philosophy. This issue took on a new significance following Scot McKnight's Five Streams of the Emerging Church article that recently appeared in Christianity Today. As I mentioned in a previous entry, for every four positive responses to McKnight's article, there was one that was not only negative, but actually scolding, dismissive, insulting. Long-time readers might remember that Brian McLaren had some very insightful things to say about these particular kinds of criticism in the interview I did with him last year.

It is clear that while those of us engaged in the Emerging Church conversation might find new perspectives a helpful thing, there are others, within the larger Christian community, who find these fresh perspectives not only unhelpful, but actually threatening. These people tend to operate under very circular, rigid belief systems. And for these people, any idea that infringes on any one corner of the "faith infrastructure" causes what amounts to a fight or flight response.

In the case of the Christianity Today article, nearly all the negative responses represent a fight mentality. Those who choose flight as a means of dealing with the Emerging Church have probably long abandoned a publication such as Christianity Today, which is actually pretty good about bringing awareness to various perspectives within a theological or ecclesial discussion. The very fact that Christianity Today lets multiple voices speak is threatening to these kinds of individuals.

That is certainly not to say that all criticism of the Emerging Church movement is knee-jerk fundamentalist flap. That would be an unfair, knee-jerk reaction in its own right. The roots of discontent behind the Emerging Church conversation are complex and varied. Many of the critiques of certain Emerging perspectives are soundly argued from a solid, although different, philosophical/theological/ecclesiological worldview.

However, right now I am not so interested in a comprehensive discussion of the issue in its entirety. There are other capable resources available in print and online in that regard. What I am interested in is a discussion of the knee-jerk reactions; the critical responses that arise out of a spirit of superiority, disdain, fear, etc. It is with that aim in mind that we at Precipice launch a new feature called: A Critique of Criticism: A Response to Reactionism Against the Emerging Church. Over the next few weeks we'll be directly addressing these particularly ungracious, destructive and dismissive examples of criticism, one by one.

Listed below are examples of such criticism, followed by our responses- listed from the most recent examples, backwards.



Criticism:

"I feel like you can never pin down the Emerging Church on what they actually believe. That kind of slippery theology seems dangerous, cowardly, and way too convenient in our politically correct culture."


Response:

There is a very good reason why it's difficult to pin the Emerging Church down on certain issues. Simply put, the Emerging Church is an evolving movement, a fluid conversation. It is not a denomination with an official doctrinal statement to refer to.

In these kinds of conversations it's usually helpful to differentiate Emergent, a specific group, from the larger Emerging Church conversation. Emergent is one community within the larger context of the Emerging Church.

The EC's slippery nature, as some might put it, also hints at its postmodern beginnings. But not because the EC crowd no longer believes in absolute truth, as some critics would suggest. But rather because open-ended questions are seen differently within the EC conversation. Questions are good. Conversation is good. That's the way many in the EC see things. The EC crowd is not nervous when grey areas linger. Mystery is newly embraced in the EC. And this shift away from a blind emphasis on propositional truth seems, to me anyway, much more in line with early Christian faith and practice.

Faith is a process. The Christian experience is a journey. We would do well to remember that for the early followers of Christ, faith was commonly referred to as "the Way"- not the destination.

If you still find yourself pining for something substantial within the EC, it is fair to say that a majority of the EC crowd are comfortable referring to the Apostles Creed as an architecture of belief. Many of the doctrinal points embraced by certain Protestant organizations (as well as their Catholic brothers and sisters) on the other hand, often move beyond the boundaries of the Apostles Creed. And for some in the EC, these statements appear particularly "modern" in nature; which is not surprising considering the culture in which the statements were crafted.

Sometimes, while historic Christian concepts and terms are used in the church of the modern era, they are used in very different ways than was originally the case. Take the concepts of biblical inspiration and authority for instance. It seems clear to me that the way that many 20th century Protestants understood these terms stands in stark contrast to the original connotations implied by many of the early Church fathers. It's not that the concepts of inspiration and authority aren't there early on. It's just that these terms are used in a much more flexible way than many modernists would feel comfortable with - or familiar with.

Touching briefly on the idea that avoiding a black and white statement on certain issues is equivalent to cowardice, I would suggest that it only looks this way from a modern perspective. Because we are talking about the God whose ways and thoughts are above our own, the EC crowd isn't at all surprised that some issues remain murky.

Those who assign cowardice as the motive behind such a stance, or the lack there of, should perhaps study postmodern philosophy a little more before assigning motive. Again, if you keep looking at these questions from a modern perspective, you're going to have a hard time understanding where the EC is coming from. That's not an accusation or an insult. It's just an observation.



Criticism:

"If the "normal Layperson" is supposed to understand all this it needs to be made a WHOLE LOT simpler! Why make something simple overcomplicated?"


Response:

This is an interesting, but in my mind, misguided point. The assumption here is that things can always be boiled down to simplified formulas. But what if that is not the case?

The complexity that arises out of the Emerging conversation has everything to do with the fact that we're talking about shifts in global paradigms. A paradigm is an over-arching worldview. It is the very lens by which you see the world. Those who are conversant in these matters understand that it is our very way of seeing and understanding that's being questioned.

That is not to say that the EC wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But it is to say that we want to step back and take a long, hard look at how modernist perspectives have colored our vision of faith and reality. And please understand, not everything about modernism is "from the pit". Some aspects will be good, some bad; just as with any meta-narrative perspective. The EC crowd is not for postmodernism and against modernism. But since it is the lens of modernism that we are emerging from, it is that particular paradigm that the EC crowd is understandably focused on critiquing.

Eventually, as our culture more thoroughly makes the shift out of modernism, the conversation itself will shift. Eventually there will come a greater degree of stasis. One should understand that we are in a unique period in history- both ecclesiologically and culturally. Of course, to a great degree, these two go hand-in-hand, despite fundamentalist rhetoric to the contrary.

Let's touch again upon the original criticism suggesting we should simplify things to make them more comprehendible. It is one thing to simplify a description of something you are looking at. For instance, a black leather ottoman could simply be described as a couch. But what about the prism I am looking through? How can I simplify its properties? I think, necessarily, that conversation will be tough sledding indeed. Our lens is so close to ourselves that it is never easy to analyze and understand.

Sorry things can't be simpler. But believe me, no one's trying to over-complicate the situation. This is just what paradigm-shifting feels like. It's like turning your world upside down. And the disorientation one feels is usually directly related to the period and geographical location you grew up in. If your "reality-shape paradigm" formed over the last thirty years or so, postmodern perspectives will feel more natural- more simple. If however, you were born before that time, or you happened to grow up in a bit of a cultural cocoon, like the deep South for instance, then I'm afraid things will feel all the more difficult. It's nothing personal. It has everything to do with contextualization.



Criticism:

"I think what disturbs me most about the so-called "emerging" church is it's thriving on this very thing: "disturbance." It revels in controversy. Take the title of this article as an example: Mr. McKnight calls his own movement "the most controversial," as if this is something to celebrate. "It's cutting edge, man," he might say. I'm not convinced this is a good thing. This movement is riding the waves of innovation, which is exciting and alluring in our generation. But is it Christian? - Is it, in the words of Paul, keeping the traditions passed on from of old? - I'm not convinced it is."


Response:

I have never heard of any reputable leader amongst the Emerging Church- publicly or privately- suggest that “disturbance” is something to consciously thrive upon. While the Emerging Church conversation may cause controversy, it is another thing entirely to say it “revels” in it. What evidence does the commenter have to support such a statement? Could he offer quotes from prominent members of the Emerging community to support such an accusation?

In regards to the second point, it should be noted that Scott McKnight is merely stating a fact in writing that the Emerging Church is “the most controversial” movement. He is in no way adopting the title as if it is an attractive description. Prescription and description are two different things entirely. The commentator fails to make the distinction.

Furthermore, to suggest that all the Emerging Church crowd wants to do is “be on the cutting edge”- is unfair and inaccurate. The movement has arisen out of a sense of need- due to a perceived weakness in current ecclesial models; specifically models constructed around certain assumptions unique to the modern era. It is aiming for correction, not “the cutting edge”.

The commentator’s last point about “keeping the traditions passed on from old” is a tactic I often see employed by Emerging Church critics. What these critics fail to realize is that, as already noted, the Emerging Church conversation is largely a critique of modern, enlightenment-inspired perspectives on ecclesiology and theology. Considering Paul wrote these words in a pre-modern context makes them largely irrelevant here. In other words, Paul was not defending modern-era inspired ecclesiology when he penned these words.

This strategy is similar to the application of Paul’s admonition regarding end-times false-prophets. Critics of the Emerging Church movement will often apply this admonition, like a catch-call, to any perspective that differs from their own. Considering that so many of these critics’ perspectives are beholden to modern assumptions, one has to wonder though, just who is in closer alignment with the thrust of Paul’s worldview? In many ways, postmodern perspectives mirror pre-modern assumptions more so than modern ones do.



Criticism:

"One of the biggest problems that has cropped up in the evangelical movement, I fear, is a problem with the emerging movement from its onset: anti-intellectualism. This is what marks the great divide between profession and action. Many today profess that which they have not taken the time to understand. The emerging focus on praxis over theology similarly will lack a defining theological foundation. This will be the first principle to be compromised. And it's easy to do. Without an idea of what is good to do in the eyes of God, the morality of the popular culture becomes the morality of the church."


Response:

This is another common criticism I hear directed towards the Emerging Church movement. It demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of the aims of the Emerging crowd. Please understand, the EC movement is not suggesting we should back-off on theology, or that praxis matters more than theology. What the Emerging crowd is saying is that the effective divorce between orthodoxy and orthopraxy amongst many western Evangelicals, has created a real imbalance in the lives of most believers, and their churches. The EC is saying that doing and thinking/believing are two sides of the same coin. Distort one and you distort the other- necessarily. The issue is one of emphasis, not of either/or.

Many would like to draw clear lines seperating belief and action, but in our real, three-dimensional world, this division is a myth. Talk to someone from an Eastern Orthodox background about this division and they’ll look back at you as if you’ve just suggested the strangest distinction they’ve ever heard of. This mythical distinction between thought and action is a product of modernism.

Again, one wishes critics would understand that the EC is not questioning "Christianity of old", if by “old”, you mean the origins of the faith. What the EC is exposing is the degree to which Christianity has been held hostage to modernist cultural norms that have dominated over the last several centuries. Let's touch on the Eastern Orthodox example again for a moment: for a group such as this, who existed in geographic regions where these modern cultural shifts didn’t take place (after all this was not a global phenomena, but a location-specific one, though we westerners are sometimes too busy navel-gazing to recognize this fact), you’ll see a much more pre-modern, integrated model of belief/practice.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule within the EC crowd. After all, the EC is not a monolithic think-tank; this is something that separates the EC from its predecessors. However, for the most part, what EC’ers are aiming for is an embrace of a more historic, global, integrated vision of the faith. Hence the term ancient-future that you often hear bandied about.