The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Creed

In the first post we saw the dangers of the "conversation," going on in the Emerging Church. They argue that they are discussing what is right and wrong in the Church. Good. I'm in...But we might want to get somewhere with it. If the Church continues in dialogue without any definitive conclusion it will be left behind sinking in quicksand. We will begin to see the whole system wrong, blaming our irrelevance while chasing culture and all the while sinking into liberal irrelevance.

The second "right" that Jonathan Brink puts forth is that they are committed to honest theology, or a open creed. What do they mean by "honest" theology? He argues:

The emerging church is committed to an honest understanding of theology. Much of our theology is not just communal but also individual, meaning my interpretation is completely bent according to my own context. I see it in different shades of color than the next person. To speak this out loud, that I’m not quite on the same exact page as the next person, has been refreshing and liberating. And what is true is that I’m simply being honest about what has always been true.

This argument has two parts and I want to begin with them. First, we see the Emerging Church escaping the communal emphasis to focus on the individual (which they criticize Conservative Evangelicals for being). However, their individualistic theology (this is what it means to me) ends up communal again (here's what I think, what do you think?).

Here the postmodern influence in the movement is very prevalent. Have you ever been in Sunday School and your "teacher," (who forgot to prepare) reads a few verses and asks, "what does this verse(s) mean to you?" And then everybody gives different interpretations of the text. That is postmodernism creeping into the church. And this is where the Emerging Church shines.

The idea here is that each individual is to come to the text, read it, and see what it means to them personally. Then, they will take their own personal interpretation and bring it to the community in which will be added to the conversations. No final answers. No ultimate authority. This is not only bad hermeneutics, it's bad theology. Being that postmodernism denies absolute truth (though some Emergents claim that they don't deny truth, and then they do, and then they don't, etc.), it is inappropriate to reach a conclusion to the text and expect everyone to agree with you. Every text written was meant to be understood.

Thanks to the philosophy of deconstructionism, which Emergents love for the most part, it is argued that since the authors are dead we cannot know for sure what they meant by what they wrote. As if language was really not that clear. Deconstrutcionism is not only dangerous, it is rather...well...stupid. It defies all rationality and permits laziness. It takes no effort to say, "I don't know," but it takes a real Christian in honest pursuit of their Savior to say, "It is worth the task."

Grant it, we shouldn't assume that our interpretation is the best and always right. But at the same time, if nobody is willing to come to grips with the text and understand it in it's original meaning rather than what I want it to mean, then we are all cowards and nothing like the Church that Christ built. Christ built the Church on a rock of His Word, and if we all fear giving conclusions drawn from the text we have already sunk into unorthodoxy and irrelevance.

Tolerance has come to a new low in the movement. "How can you say that you are right and I am wrong?" Uhhh....God said so! I caution myself and others to not be overly opinionated and unwilling to change their theological opinions, especially at the breaking of friendship with fellow believers, but at the same time, I expect Christians to stand on God's Word and not let it blow in the cultural wind and then chase after it. God's Word is God's Word whether or not people agree with it. What we believe is not determined by opinion polls, but by what God has said. Period!

Enter humility. Rather, false humility. Here we see the second part of Brink's argument. He argues that it is wrong to assume that we have all the answers. Throughout many of Brian McLaren's books, he calls systematic theology, and theologians in general, people who have God and the Bible "freeze dried." By this he means that we have all of our "ducks in a roll" (as Brink puts it) and have everything figured out about God. Therefore, no mystery.

But is that what we are really hearing from conservative theologians? Sure, we are confident that we know much about God: He is Sovereign, provident, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, righteous, pure, etc. But how do we know this? He told us through His spoken/written Word. We are not making this up! We would know nothing of God unless He revealed it too us. Theology is the pursuit of understanding and knowing God who has revealed Himself to us.

Herein lies the Emergent emphasis on "mystery." They don't want freeze dried answers but poetry and mystery. In other words, they want questions, not answers. That is, they want to believe/practice what is comfortable to them and what fits them, everything else in the Bible and about God will have to come later. Why struggle with God's wrath whenever I am desperate for His love? Why listen to God's harsh words on homosexuality whenever I am still learning to practice love my neighbor? And shame on anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out.

But that is the great part about theology: it is impossible to get enough! The work is never finished. All of the great theologians, after years of study and scholarship, realize that they have yet to scratch the surface of God! This is why we begin the search and study in the first place. We become consumed by the infinity and awesomeness of God. He is unfathomable, but that is not an excuse to not try. And Emergents, unlike the Evangelicals, have ceased trying.

Sure, they believe in God and study Him...but not all of Him. They want a God made in their own image, wrapped in mystery, a postmodern God that they can have freeze dried. That, my friends, leads to nothing else but heresy.

So here is the new humility: I am too humble to say that I have it all figured out. It used to be: I am a wretched sinner unworthy of knowing my Maker and Savior, please tell me more about Him! Humility used to be rooted in the cross: the sinner beating his chest begging for forgiveness. Now, it is the postmodern beating his neighbors chest, "how dare you tell me I am wrong."

Things have really changed!

Is the argument that Brink puts forth the direction the Church needs to go? With all humility and with the absolute authority of the Bible, and yes God, on my side, I give a resounding NO!