I’ve been doing some study for the past couple years about the “Emergent” church and the one thing I can say for certain is that I’m not sure whether to capitalize the “E” or not.

If you’re not familiar with the emergent movement (gosh, that term just about BEGS for a snide comment, doesn’t it?) it’s an out-growth—or, in medical terms, just a growth—of post-modernism. You could sum it up with the phrase, “Question everything.”

I have no problem with that. Sometimes we do take too much on face value. My problem with post-modernism (in general, and in relation to this blog specifically) and emergent philosophy is that it’s apparently wrong to assume there are answers to these questions and, in most cases, the question is more important than the answer. “Is Jesus the way, the truth and the life?” is a good question to ask. It’s just not permissible to say, “Yes!” in response. Or even, “Yes.” “Maybe” isn’t too good, either, unless you follow it up with another question, preferably one not related to the first one.

If you want a good explanation of the movement, read the book “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell. It’s incredibly pretentious and vaguely sanctimonious, but—in all fairness—it’s also not very well written. This is because it’s written like a blog—which may be what it was before someone decided to print it on real paper and bind it. So it has that free-form, urgent, “feel” to it that lets you know it’s, well … free-form and urgent. It is very popular and has sold far more copies than anything I am every likely to write, so what do I know?

All of this is about inviting dialogue and discussion (preferably over email or in a blog of your own), so some people have started trying to take up the challenge and argue from the other side—which, I guess, might be termed “orthodoxy” or “theology” as those are two terms emergents (which Word tells me is not a word) are rebelling against.

One of the better arguments/counter-discussions I have read is the book “Why We’re Not Emergent (by Two Guys Who Should Be)” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. These two authors, like me, can appreciate the emergents’ asking of questions. Like me, though, they are troubled by the apparent lack of answers.

DeYoung, in one of his chapters (they alternate, which makes for a more fun book than I would have expected) writes, “I’m not sure what the emerging church believes about the Bible. And this concerns me. Burned-out evangelicals who go emergent and talk squishy about the Bible may still basically treat the Bible as if it were completely true and authoritative. This would be a fortuitous inconsistency. But what happens in the second generation? What happens when an erstwhile church planter with a few Neo books under his belt starts doing church with a radical skepticism about the authority of the Bible and forms a people by musing on about how his community affirms the Bible (in part), therefore making it ‘welcome’ in their conversation? We can wax eloquent about the beauty of the story and how the Scriptures read to us, but unless we are convinced that the Bible is authoritative, true, inspired, and the very words of God, over time they will read it less frequently, know it less fully, and trust it less surely.”

While I share his worry, I would also like to point out that this has already been going on a long time. For instance, I am working with a family now that's got all sorts of turmoil going on. (Changing the circumstance a bit to insure privacy, let me say that) Grampa--the patriarch--is a faithful church-goer. But while he reverences the Bible (in his words) and his actions are those of a Christian man, he has never been much of a Bible reader. His children (all grown and now becoming grandparents themselves) grew up with a reverence/fondness for church that manifests itself as them being wonderfully nice people, but the Bible has no real part in their faith or practice. The children and grandchildren are nice folks you wouldn't mind having as neighbors but they are living far from God. Grampa wants to get them in church. But never do we hear anything about how Grampa (or any of the other church-going members of the family) want them to get right with the Lord. In fact (hold onto your chairs if you're a thinking Christian), according to Grampa and the other church-going members of the family, these promiscuous, troubled (in many ways) children ARE right with God! Where do they get this idea? Not from scripture, but because the kids are "good kids".

This is not a comment about this family's mores so much as it is a comment about people who go to church, claim to be Christians, and want the best for their children do not see the Bible or its teachings as helpful--let alone authoritative--to that end. "This is my daughter's third child out of wedlock by three--maybe four!--different ment but THANK GOD she's saved. Now, how can we get her in church?" That IS a good question!

I know kids aren't going to be perfect. I wish mine were, but they're not. But I strive to see that my kids grow up grounded in God's written word so they'll have a reliable plumb line when troubles—whether of their own making or someone else's—come along. This family that I'm thinking of has a pretty good plumb line in Grampa, but would you really build a building with a "pretty good plumb line" (i.e. periodically known to be faulty) or would you rather build with a reliable plumb line?

My point (I better make this clear) is that scriptural drift has been going on for a long time and can't be blamed on the emergent movement. And, if you read Chesterton (and others before him), you'll find that to do so and call it a method of growing stronger in Christ is not new, either. But, like Chesterton (without the vocabulary, cogency, et. al.) I'm seeing a need to rebel against emergent-cy and speak up for orthodoxy.

Maybe I’m painting emergent philosophy with too wide a brush, but I will be interested to see how they address this. (Oddly, there are some aspects of emergent philosophy that are being held by so many of the leaders of the movement that they are becoming emergent orthodoxy—hence the title for this blog.) Will the emergent church continue to ask and not answer? If so, what will it be like in 10, 20 or 80 years?

And, here’s a thought: the emergent church was born out of a perceived rigidity in orthodoxy (which may be for real) that eschewed questions, but will this culture of questioning everything eventually produce a rebellion that has its adherents grasping for orthodoxy?

Since I can’t answer that question, it must be a good one!

Comments? Email me at martha917@yahoo.com.