Imperishable Inheritance

I had a hard time understanding exactly what the emerging church (or "post conservatism") movement exactly entailed until I listened to an interview with Justin Taylor over his new book Reclaiming the Center. I couldn't figure exactly what I disagreed with in regards to the emerging movement until Justin made it clear the ambiguity was the biggest problem.

In his assesment, and what I have read of emerging leaders, it became clearer on how the emerging movement (or "conversation" or whatever other flaky term you desire to utilize) places emphasis upon tradition and experience. Interestingly enough, the emerging churches self proclamied "new" way of approaching ecclesiology and doctrinal formation is not so new. I remember studying about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral a while back in regards to Wesley's theological formulation (in fact, I originally wrote the article for Theopedia). The Wesleyan utilizes four main sources for their theology.

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

The emerging leaders definetly want to keep Scripture in their definition of theological formulation, because they realize to do so would hinder any chance at credibility in wider evangelicalism (keep in mind that they abhore even defining terms like "evangelicalism"). The attempt to blend traditions and experience into truth turns into a theological mess. The good thing about the emerging movement is that it has a focus on moving away from theological arrogance to which I am all to familiar with. It is a great thing to be cognizant of how doctrine can change our perception both of God and of others, but we musn't turn away from finding Biblical truths solely because depraved human beings have acted in their depravity. I even found an emerging sympathizer who added to the Weslyan Quadrilateral (of course, he added "society").

I see many people in the movement I am in, Campus Crusade for Christ, which epitomizes emerging epistemology even though they don't know what epistemology or emerging mean. I see more people wanting to pick up Screwtape Letters or Blue Like Jazz instead of Grudem's Systematic Theology, because they see the practice of systematic theology as trying to fit God into a box. Therefore, we get Christians emphazing experience and/or tradition to define their relationship with God. I believe strongly that this is dangerous. It opens up much for doctrinal relativism. Wikipedia describes a tenant of the emerging movement as "A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason" and "a desire to reanalyze the Bible against the context with the goal of revealing a multiplicity of valid perspectives rather than a single valid interpretation."

This is not a "new" debate over doctrinal lines or approaches to doctrine. Despite the fact that emergents want to sell it as being new (who doesn't want to be "neo" something?), this line of thought has existed for centuries.

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. There is no remembrance of earlier things; And also of the later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come later still.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11