A while back I commented on a conversation taking place over at Blogadoxy on the Emergent Church Movement and its borrowing liturgies from other Christian traditions specificaly Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Recently someone commented on my comments bellow you will find the comments and my responce: (I would say who it was but the person posted anonymously.)
Some preliminary remarks: I could be misconstrued as attempting to defend the whole Emergent Church movement, which would be incorect. Essentially I only have contact and interest in a very small aspect of the movement the Emergent folk I know at Up\Rooted here in Chicago. What I say I say about them and how I understand thier approach, and what I hope for them. In some ways I suppose I could be considered emergent and in other ways I don't feel I or Reconciler really fit that bill.
Emergent/Emerging Churchers are addressing the problem of "What's Wrong with Evangelical Theology."
The problem with their grab-bag approach (aka "borrowing") is that they for the most part remain evangelical Protestant (Baptist, Reformed, etc.) while seeking rites and accoutrements from other confessions that will enhance their evangelical Protestant experience but not challenge or change it.For all of their borrowing, most will choose to stand outside of the Church and demand acceptance by the Church on their own terms instead of submitting themselves in humility. It is the Protestant way.
To a point I agree with this. In that the Emergent movement does seem to be a responce to a percieved failure and when it comes down to it that failure is seen to be theological. It is also true that the "borrowing" is seen to enhance their evangelical Protestantism. However, among those I meet they see the church as the church, whatever denomination you belong to (and yes from their perspective Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are simply denominations, older denominations, but denominations all the same). What I hear from the Emergent folk here in Chicago is that what is wrong with evengelical Protestant theology is how it is isolated and isolated from the larger body of Christ and the history and traditions of the church. There seems to be a real desire to end this isolation and to be the body of Christ. In that sense there are echoes of earlier protestant movements in this country, though now the emergent actually see those outside of Protestantism as part of the church. So I think there is an openness to change and challenge that may not have been there in previous analogous movements within evangelical Protestantism.
The ethos of their "borrowing" follows the same way. They'll take something from the Orthodox Church and then prefix it with "nu" or "new" and try to make it their own. The new/nu prefix translates: "stripped of anything that I don't like or will force me to give up my own subjective authority."
I don't see this attitude among the Up/rooted folk, in fact there is a very real admision that much of what they are doing and attempting isn't particularly new just new to them and their communities. I also, see an interest in coming to a clear sense of what is the church. Granted they don't have an Orthodox ecclessiology, but then if they did they'd be Orthodox and not Emergent evanglical Protestants. My point has been that from their side (and even my own perspective) they are not outside the church Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy (not only are Christians) but are also part of the church. This is fairly radical and I think positive move, and in that sense this borrowing is moving the Ergent I know much closer to other Christians especially the Roman Catholics and Orthodox than could have been imagined even 15 20 years ago when anti-Roman Catholic rhetoric was not uncommon in these circles (perhaps still isn't I don't know I am less familiar than I once was with the evangelical Protestants).
Well I will let that stand for now. I will continue on this and the rest of what was posted in responce in another post.
Hola Larry. "Anonymous" here again.
ReplyDeletePlease read this, if'n you want to understand where I'm coming from -- or rather, where I came from and where I'm going:
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1154
I was similarly reticent when I first began to hear about the Emergent Church movement, until I enountered this group identifying itself as emergent.
ReplyDeleteMy own sense after hanging around with emergent folk here in Chicago and looking at various church web sites who are supposedly a part of the emergent movement is that both the Up/rooted folk here in Chicago and the emergent you describe are both a part of what is being called the Emergent Church. I think it comes down to that the Emergent church is attempting to take what is being called Postmodern and respond/react and take seriously the various cultural philsophical and theological changes labled as post-modern. However the Emergent Movement has yet to dictate what that responce/reaction is or should be. So, you have some emergent who because of postmodernism have rediscovered that the church has a tradition that the history of the church is important for knowing what Christianity is. there are also those who are simply replaying the old primitivist card (at best) and simply replaying every Protestant failed attempt to return to some prestine Chrsitian fiath. Though this time playing very heavily with the value of relavance.
My point though is that given the various ways tradition and liturgy are being approached by people in the Emergent Movement means that there are some positive things occuring in the movement, even if it may be that what we have is just another Protestant movement that will run its course and produce yet anothe group of Christians disconected from the history and tradition of the church.
In any case my hope is that the movement is more like what I see here in Chicago than what you discribe. This is only a hope, But I will do my best to encourage this strain of the emergent even if I will wish to stand outside it. Because I know of the presence of the elements you describe.
"Anonymous"
ReplyDeleteParoused your article and will coment again when I have taken it in more fully.
However, My initial reaction is that we are perhaps not that far apart. In fact what I see in the Emergent folk here in Chicago is precisely a sense of emergence as something emerging out of the deficient into that which is fuller and more complex. At least that is what I hear as the desire of the Emergent Cohort Up/rooted. Thus, what I am hearing from those who self identify is not the sense of the emergence of the new. My comments have been to say that while I understand some (many) in the emergent movement are as I have seen them characterized there is also another side to the Emergent Church movement, something more orthodox and catholic. They are more using the opportunity of what is labled post-modern to emerge from that which is difficient to a more complex reality. Namely to find the fulness of the faith in the tradition of the Church.
This is where I find a certain affinity with the emergent movement though like I said in the previous comment I wish to stand outside it while encouragin what I see as its more positive elements.