Monday, July 25, 2005

Change or Die?

I'm behind on my reading. So what else is new? But I thought I'd make a few comments on what I hear people like Spong and certain "emergent" voices are saying about Christianity today. These are just some thoughts I have, nothing like a systematic tackling of the problems they are addressing.

My main impression is, good luck. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the criticisms and observations these guys are making are correct. But I don't see the death of Christianity in its older forms anywhere on the horizon.

Why? Because the most traditional and entrenched forms of Christianity and the most childlike of faiths are only as far away as the Sunday School nearest you. Generations of "enlightened," liberal seminarians have been emerging for generations. And let us not forget the oft cited legend of Voltaire predicting the death of Christianity within a generation--made in the late 1700's.

I'm not saying that the emergents aren't on to some things. I'm just saying that the emerging twenty-somethings of the sixties and seventies were on to some things too, as were the emergents of the twenties, or of the 1890 Methodists who had returned from studying in Germany. (By the way, I'll bet you that a lot of the emergent writers today don't "know" some of the things those 1890 emergents knew a hundred years ago--talk about how enduring emergent knowledge is)

What little I've read of the "hot" emergent writers doesn't leave me thinking, "Wow, I need to rethink my theology completely." If anything it's surprise that these guys actually think they're on to something new. I mean, really, Honest to God was written in the 60's, and it didn't stop the conservative resurgence of the 80's that I lived through. If anything, the current emergents are a lot shallower than their predecessors, although they dress better and are certainly more hip.

And look at how powerful conservative evangelical politics are right now--way more powerful than I can ever remember before--even during the Reagan years when I was at Boy's State and we were voting in school prayer. And this comes after the enlightened sixties and seventies! Indeed, the once having ruled enlightened emergents of those days are completely at a loss today at how the "assured progress" of those days doesn't seem to have any support among grass roots people today. They lost to their "conservative" children.

So what am I really saying? First, I'm not dismissing everything the "emergent church" is saying. I think they probably have some insights that the "masses" don't. However, it's almost embarrassing that some of them would think they're the first ones ever to have some of these insights. Frankly, I'm not even sure some of the ones touting themselves as post-modern even understand what the word really means. I'm waiting for the profound new idea that really leaves me thinking, "Wow, I've never thought or heard of that before."

And I'm wishing them good luck on changing the world. But I'll take that bet against Spong that Christianity is about to die if it doesn't change. I've been to Sunday School, and those impressionable little minds have the same visions of Jesus loving the little children of the world that I had as a child in the 70's.

7 comments:

nathan richardson said...

good article, has anything really changed with this idea of emergent? there have always been house churces, relational christianity, etc, etc. in reality their are few new ideas. new generations are always popping up wanting to do something "different" than what they grew up with. i like change, i invite it as well, but in reality it has probably been done before.

thanks schenck

JohnLDrury said...

It seems like apocalyptic rhetoric like this has considerable power at wooing followers for both traditionalist and revisionist agendas. Can one rally the troops for action (either conserving or revolting) without it?

Keith Drury said...

Every generation seems desperate to declare its uniqueness from previous generations and wants to announce it has discovered the essential problem with the church and knows [at least a partial] solution... the current "emerging" generation seems no different. Perhaps this is how the Holy Spirit makes minor corrections in the whole—by sending along a new generation that imagines it is revolutionary, but once the “revolution” is done the course of the church has been altered lass than 1% (not to dismiss 1% corrections—given a long enough trajectory it makes a whopping difference!). You’ve made me review my own hippie-generation’s intended “revolution” in the “way we do church” and given the following 40 years of church history I don’t even see a 1% difference—in fact, as you point out within 20 years the church was moving the opposite direction… sometimes a small emerging movement eventually has the exact opposite effect in the whole… so now I’m wondering if THAT is how the Spirit uses some movements…. The question will be if the “emerging” movement’s effect will eventually be the opposite of everything it “stands” for… gee that’s a balloon-popper!

Ken Schenck said...

The truth is that I'm an emergent wanna be, but don't have the dress sense or the panache (see, I can't even spell style).

Mike Cline said...

I absolutely agree that most who claim to be "postmodern" have no clue what it means. Perhaps that is because any system that sets itself up and strives to be undefinable will eventually collapse in meaning? The main problem I see is in rhetoric. Postmodern philosophers battle it out in the classroom with those claiming to be "postmodern worshippers." It's becomes a battle between "there is no absolute truth?" and "I love community driven churches. Can we burn some incense?" Perhaps if we could come to some sort of uniform meaning for "postmodern" we could come to some agreement, but can you come to a uniform meaning with a system that rebels against being "put in a box?"

The biggest thing in those who are truly at the forefront of the "emergent" movement is the recognition of change. Church is more of a fliud institution. Changes come and go, and it is a good thing. Hopefully that ideas sticks, or we will be just like your generations and not wanting to give in to the next new wave of church design.

The idea that most of the emergent stuff is focused on style rather than substance is quite a stretch. I have more hope for the development (not change) of theology for my generation than the seeker sensitive boomer junk of the 80's and 90's. Come to my theology class and you'll see the passion for putting man's sin and the power of the cross back to the forefront.

Ken Schenck said...

I suppose the word post-modern can have different legitimate meanings in the sense that use defines meaning. I suppose it can have a philosophical and a sociological meaning.

I have a love hate relationship with emergent things. Sometimes I identify with its thoughts and feelings but don't like the arrogance it sometimes seems to have. And I believe the car is the church of the age's. There's a point at which I feel people's continuity with that church is so strained that you need to get your own car.

Mike Cline said...

I can understand your uneasiness about the arrogance Emergent tends to carry. I don't claim to be "emergent," I am not even sure I claim to be postmodern anymore. But it would seem to me that being arrogant would place most emergents more in line with modernity than they would want to admit. (The whole reliance on history and science..."We know this for sure...THis is the way!") So if emergents are indeed arrogant with style and approach, I would probably not place them in the "emergent/postmodern church" category as much as I would the "disolved/modern" category.