McLaren and the "Emergent" Church: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I know I promised to start some discussions about history and revelation, but the occasion of a talk by Brain McLaren in the Seminary chapel makes it necessary and relevant to dialogue about the "emerging church" and the state of Christian churches in America in general.

I will not attempt to summarize what McLaren spoke about (partly because it requires quoting his rhetorical flourishes), but those who feel "in the dark" should read, or at least skim thoroughly, his most recent and best work, A Generous Orthodoxy. Those who are familiar with McLaren's writings probably recognize his characteristic weak areas, which were evident as expected in this talk. I will highlight a few of these weak points in a bit.

First, I want to highlight where I am in agreement with McLaren and why. I will present these in numerical order, but there is no reason for this order, other than the order in which they come to my mind. To begin:

(1) I agree that the church in America is facing, or will face very soon, an emergency of drastic proportions. I hate to sound apocalyptic about this, but I think McLaren is mostly right in this regard. Of course, he is by no means the only one aware of this pending disaster. He is simply one of the most outspoken about it. The nature of this emergency is up for serious debate, but I think McLaren summarized it well when he stated that we are in a paralyzing "Cold War" scenario, in which churches and individuals have chosen "sides" (e.g., conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat) which characterizes the Other as "wrong." Such a state of affairs freezes the faith (making it no faith at all), emphasizes "safe" models of "success," searches for profitable and powerful "solutions" to keep denominations and churches alive (but only superficially), and all the while forgets (intentionally or unintentionally?) the Gospel. This is obviously a gross oversimplification, but it is largely true.

(2) I agree with McLaren's over-simplistic but generally correct statement that the "Mainline" churches are dying, and the Religious Right churches are going brain dead. And I also agree that, for now, the Religious Right is going to see (a Pyrrhic) victory in its pursuit of establishing the new American civil religion. But that will not be the end of the story (cf. Revelation).

(3) I agree that the church today needs to not shut down failing churches (usually to provide financial stability for the denomination), but that to keep Christianity alive, we need to plant new churches. And these church plants need to be characterized by innovation within the local cultural context, not imitation of the "parent church" or what the denominational "ideal" is according to those in power. Denominations need to take a financial risk by planting churches that are not financially secure by any means. Denominations need to be prepared to lose money on a church plant, rather than keeping the money safe -- and hence, unused. (Parable of the Talents, anyone?)

(4) I agree that churches need to welcome and encourage the theological thought of the younger generations, marginalized persons and people groups (and that includes ALL people groups), and those who do not have the means to go through professional education. In other words, churches need to recognize the abilities and possibilities among those who are ignored -- ignored quite often, unfortunately, by those who received a high-class seminary education. Much of this new thought will not take place in book form, but rather through the various artistic and creative means at people's disposal. Do churches today have the ears to hear and the eyes to see what is being produced?

(5) Finally, I agree with McLaren's hesitance to use the term "emerging church," though we need to consider his rhetorical alternative, "the church emerging." I also agree with his preference for the term "emergent conversation," since it does not give off the sectarian flavor of wanting to establish just another denomination in a vast sea of others. We do not need the Emergent Church as equivalent to the Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, Baptist Church, etc.

Okay, enough with the sermonizing. All of what I just stated was present in McLaren's talk tonight. But we need to address the holes and the inherent problems.

(1) First, the "emergent conversation" has yet to provide a systematic (read "consistent" or "orderly" if you prefer) way of how to use and understand the ancient and modern traditions. These innovative, new churches are pulling from all kinds of sources -- using creeds, liturgies, rituals, monastic rules, et al. -- but they have no way of regulating how individuals and individual churches read, understand, and put into practice these traditions. This is a serious problem! I recognize that McLaren does not want to create a new denomination, but what's being created instead is thousands of churches without any regulating authority to guide how these churches develop and use these ancient and modern texts. It is not enough to use the creeds on Sunday mornings. There is a reason why the mainline churches have well-developed polities in order to provide guiding principles for how churches should operate. McLaren's emphasis on innovation is important, but without hermeneutical guides and an understanding about how to appropriate and use ancient texts and traditions, these innovative churches threaten to become islands of individualism without any clear way of connecting these churches into the wider community of saints.

(2) Connected with this criticism is the corresponding lack of critical judgment in McLaren's writings regarding theology. McLaren openly promotes a kind of "generous orthodoxy," by which he means a Christianity that is ardently ecumenical and seeks to bridge the chasms between denominations and theological schools. This is a worthy goal, to be sure, but what he needs is some solid ground upon which to stand and think out of. Jüngel may be polemical and controversial, but that is because Jüngel is unwaveringly consistent and believes the truth should never be compromised for the sake of agreement. McLaren could use a heavy dose of uncompromising commitment to a theological framework. But his books consciously thrust off any such framework. He has no foundation from which to point out the strengths and weaknesses of other people's views. He wants to draw from all these modern/contemporary theologians (and he rattled off a bunch of names right at the start, though Barth, Jüngel, Webster, and Gunton were conspicuously missing), but many of these writers disagree with each other -- so how does he or anyone else in the emergent community read these theologians? I suspect that they pick and choose what they want to emphasize and put into practice, which is probably how many of them also read Scripture. I find this to be very disconcerting. Is Moltmann right about the Trinity? McLaren apparently thinks so, but why? Is Newbigin right about missions? McLaren thinks so, but why? What makes these theologians "right"? And by gathering ideas and thoughts from all these many sources, how does he or anyone else actually differentiate between what is helpful or not helpful? How does he recognize that which corresponds most appropriately to Scripture and the Christian tradition? In other words, how does a movement that tries to use all the traditions actually stand within a tradition? If the emergent community avoids tradition, then who are they and what will they become?

(3) McLaren's books have -- since A New Kind of Christian -- been too comfortable with the oversimplistic understanding of the postmodern as something altogether different and better than the so-called modern. In the book just mentioned, McLaren's characters speak about the year 2000 as the beginning of the "postmodern era," which is not only historically inaccurate, it's also misleading in terms of intellectual developments. (It's funny that in 2002, Jungel wrote about the end of postmodernity!) This is why I am not any more comfortable with McLaren's term "the church emerging." Emerging from what? From a dark womb? from being lost in the thickets? from "postmodernity"? from out of nothing? The church is not emerging; it's already emerged. It emerged with the apostles of Jesus learning to be disciples and "fishers of men"; it emerged even more with Jesus' resurrection and the Great Commission; and it finally became living reality with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So what is this talk of "the church emerging"? The church has been here for quite some time already. However, reading McLaren sympathetically, I suspect his rhetorical urges have led him to say things he does not mean. What he probably means is that we are ready to shift gears, to emerge into something that is untried and experimental and insecure -- and hopefully a little better.

More of course needs to be said for and against the emergent movement. From a future theologian's perspective, I suggest that this burgeoning community needs to find a coherent and consistent theological foundation in order to emerge with hope for the future. As it is, the community is too focused on their style and environment of worship. But there needs to be a strong, fertile connection with their theology. Some of these communities are getting it right, but because there is no oversight and structure to these independent churches, it's not unlike the evangelical Free Churches, except that these use creeds, candles, and have fancy websites.

In closing, here is a quote from local Portland author, Don Miller, whose books include Blue Like Jazz and Searching for God Knows What. He is kind of like an emergent version of Anne Lamott, with a strong West Coast, hippy flair. I recommend his books, which are not theology, but rather hilarious yet serious memoirs about his life and his faith. This passage from Blue Like Jazz is relevant, I believe:

A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America--about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and the human struggle. I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing.

Personally, I want to take his statements a little further. The Christian church that proclaims the gospel of Christ is not only relevant as Paul the apostle tried to be, but it also subverts and interrupts culture by proclaiming the Word of truth. The gospel of justification through the work of Christ is one that is both winsome in its form and interruptively critical in its content. Such is the nature of Jesus himself, who came in the form of a man, but overturned tables and proclaimed himself to be the way, the truth, and the life.