The Emergent Church

I've decided that is time for me to study the postmodern church (the "emerging" church), so I've now dived into several of their books and websites. In case you didn't know, the Emergent Church—which is notoriously hard to defined—is a new church movement that seeks to reform our current way doing church, and to some extent it seeks to reform our understanding of what Christianity is. They do this mainly by criticizing the current "modernized" church, and pointing out her many shortcomings. …And man, I have to admit, they are quite good at pointing out many of the problems that plague the church today. As I read their material I find that I am constantly challenged by their (often painfully) spot-on criticisms, which almost always demand some sort of action.

That being said, there are quite a few annoyances in their literature as well. One major annoyance for me is how they brush in broad strokes--you either fall into one category or the other; there are no other views, no in-betweens. For example we are told:

Rather than trying to capture timeless truth in objective statements systematized in analytical outlines and recorded in books and institutionalized in schools and denominations, narrative theology embraces, preserves, and reflects on the stories of people and communities involved in the romance of God—always beginning with and always returning to the treasury of stories in Scripture: the good, bad, ugly, and undetermined lives of those who have sought God and found God and lost God and served God and heard and ignored God and opposed God and betrayed God and returned to God and loved God all the more for having been forgiven much. In the process, it seeks to understand the direction and purpose and meaning of the larger narrative (the story of emergence) that these individual stories constitute.

Note the implied false dilemma here. Either we can concern ourselves with "trying to capture timeless truth in objective statements" or we can embrace a view which "preserves, and reflects on the stories of people and communities involved in the romance of God." Either we can concern ourselves with studying the objective truth claims found in some dusty old book, or we can actually have a genuine relationship with God, unhindered by the cold hard facts.

…Excuse me? Why is this an "either/or" situation? Couldn't it be the case that by studying the objective truth claims of scripture, we actually gain a deeper and more meaningful relationship with God? I mean, isn't it the case that the more we learn about Who this God is, the more in awe we are at His love, power, and majesty? Now don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying that the most learned have the deepest relationship with God, nor am I saying that studying the Bible automatically gives us a relationship with God. No, we have to submit to these truths and ultimately to God Who is the source of all truth. What I am saying is that this is not an either or situation. We must concern ourselves with both the truths of scripture, and a relationship with the God Who has gaven us the scriptures as a revelation of Himself. Knowing someone requires that you know at least something about them, and it is in the "timeless truths" found in the "objective statements" of that dusty old book we call the "Bible," where we find God's character revealed

What do you think?

Stay tuned, more insights to follow.