A Christian Affirmation 2005 and the Emerging Church, Part 2

Okay, I have read a decent amount about the Emerging Church, enough, I think, to make a few comment about it, but before that, I’d like to just put forth a few more thoughts on A Christian Affirmation 2005. The very first sentence says, “It is our intention to clarify our Christian identity in a time of increasing uncertainties.” I wonder what the uncertainty is and, in fact, that word really strikes a nerve with me. We in Churches of Christ have been very certain about our beliefs and have tried to push our particular way of doing church onto everyone else. But we are not alone. Many of the leaders in the Emerging Church movement are going against what they have experienced in evangelical Christianity as well. Brad Cecil, one of the writers in Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), says about his first seminary experience, “I was confident that my beliefs were right and all other options could only be wrong. But hearing someone else proclaim this kind of certainty seemed so odd to me. I couldn’t figure out why exactly—after all, I was trained to be certain.” (p. 166) He continues on the next page, “I realized the failure of ‘certainty’ and also how much is presumed upon God, the Bible, and the world.” So is this the certainty people need and is that what CA05 is about? This is possible. CA05 also states in the introduction, “The path to substantive Christian unity is found in returning to the clear teachings of Scripture and practices of the early church, commonly acknowledged and respected by all Christian traditions.” What clear teachings and practices of the early church are respected by all Christian traditions? When CA05 goes on to mention original design, baptism by immersion, weekly Lord’s Supper and a cappella music, I know for a fact that these are not “commonly acknowledged and respected by all Christian traditions.” There are not many, other than as CA05 points out, the Orthodox Church, who worship a cappella (without instruments for those of you unfamiliar with the terminology). Many, actually most, do not practice adult, believer baptism, though all practice baptism of some sort. All practice the Lord’s Supper, but most do not do it weekly. So, does this mean there cannot be any “substantive Christian unity”?

When I brought up the idea of talking about the “non-negotiables” of the Christian faith, many were hesitant, and I think rightly so. Yet what I think is so misguided about the way we have practiced restoration is trying to restore the “faith and PRACTICE” of the early church. Returning to the faith of the early church is a good idea. We need to be informed by Scripture. We need to think about what they believed. If it challenges our practices based upon theological grounds, then let’s change our practices. Yet, I don’t think unity can be based on how we do worship on Sunday. I think it is supposed to be based on our common faith, not our common practice. We do all believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, though we may have different understandings of how that exactly happened. We do all believe that he died for our sins, with, of course, varying interpretations as to what his death did for our sins, and we all believe that he was resurrected by God on the third day. We believe that submitting to his Lordship is a part of living the Christian life, no matter how often we might fail at doing this—i.e. being a Christian is more than just confessing faith, but has to do with how we live out that faith as well. The only two arguments in Scripture I can think of right now (I’m open to correction here) that involve a core part of our theology deal with required belief in the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and belief that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John). Without these two beliefs, one could not be Christian. We waver on talking about essentials of the faith, but our very Scriptures do not, at least in these two cases. There seems to be some room for certainty, but it is not found in worship practices. (Those of you with other examples, put them on the comment board so we can discuss them.)

So, CA05 bothers me because it promotes certainty, especially in practices that separate me from my brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than beliefs that unite me to them.

On to discussing the Emerging Church. The subtitle of a recent book by Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) seems to say it all—emerging leaders are seeking to restore “vintage Christianity” for the very purpose of attracting younger generations. They, too, looked at the certainty in their own denominations, but also the ineffective, seeker-sensitive worship practices, that seemed to attract only the baby boomers. Here is a brief, and probably a little more boiled down than I’d like, summary of the book: The first part is an attempt to lay a foundation for what is recommended in the second part. It is mostly an attempt to define postmodernism and describe the culture such a worldview then creates. There is much talk about who the new seeker is and what will attract or repel that person. There is a sharp critique, and probably well deserved, of modern evangelical’s failure to reach the new generation. In fact, there are many charts that pit the “modern” church against the “postmodern” church, mainly showing how the former is pretty much outdated and irrelevant for contemporary culture, while the latter is a more authentic and powerful way to reach younger generations. There is much to commend the book. Kimball focuses on the witness to the world of following Christ’s example in reaching out to the poor and outcast of society. It is good critique of modernism and our assumptions that stem from our worldview. It is also extremely important that we see ourselves as missionaries trying to learn a new culture. He even recommends something really close to my heart—restoration. Emerging Church leaders want to revive practices of the early church, to include use of candles, incense, prayer labyrinths, and just anything that will make worship seem more spiritual with more of a connection to God. They have the praise team play at the back of the room so the focus is not on them, but on the music and worship of God. The preacher does not stand far back on a stage, dispensing truth to the masses, but is more like one of them and brings the message from among them. Variety in worship is a good thing. Yet I found myself over and over again wondering if what he suggests is so much a matter of a postmodern worldview and not more a matter of personality style. Many of the practices mentioned appeal much more to “right-brained” people and should have always been an emphasis in our worship. If Kimball’s book was the only one out there and he was the main leader of the movement, I would agree wholeheartedly with where they are going and what they are trying to do, even though it is a protest against mainstream evangelicalism and is likely to turn into a sectarian fellowship much the same way that has happened in Churches of Christ and other churches in the American Restoration Movement. The subtitle “moving from absolute to authentic” says much about this protest—it suggests that Christianity that is not Emergent is not authentic. I take issue with that for many reasons, though I don’t want to belabor the point here.

So, where do we go from here? I think that CA05 is a reaction to this, reaffirming our practices in light of an Emerging movement that is trying to change church practices. This can help us keep our identity, but there are some changes the Emerging leaders suggest that are both helpful and necessary to reach those who have different personalities and different ways of connecting with God. This is a helpful critique. If it means we do Lord’s Supper a bit differently from time to time that connects better with some people, this is a helpful correction and realizes that we don’t all practice our faith in the same way. There has always been diversity. If CA05 helps us remember the importance of baptism and Lord’s Supper in the life of the believer so that while we consider different ways of reaching out to the new generations we don’t throw away what is beneficial from our heritage, I think it too has served a useful purpose. Will it lead to unity among all Christians? I think history has already answered that question with a resounding “no.” The call to cast off denominational names such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. and become “Christians Only” for the sake of unity was not heeded (if you happen to be one of these, I’m not picking on you, I just used the first three that came to my head as an example).

So I end this article thinking there is something valuable about both topics of discussion. Yet this is not my final word. There is much in the Emerging Church that is troubling, especially their complete buy-in to the idea of “hard” postmodernism. Next week I will spend a good deal of time with D.A. Carson’s important critique, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). If you have read and been interested in the Emerging Church and are considering the merits of becoming part of this movement, you MUST read Carson’s book. I will also have a future article discussing Christian unity that will likely occur after I’m done with the discussion on the Emerging Church and CA05. Thanks for reading and I hope to generate some discussion on this topic.