This is the fifth and last installment of our series of the Wrongs of the Rights presented by Jonathan Brink at Emergent Village. It should be noted that this is not an attack on Jonathan Brink. Rather, I believe that Brink's list of "Rights" characterizes the Emerging Church very well. Therefore, I find it essential to deal with these five issues because they summarize the main tenants of the movement.With that said, Brink offers his fifth and final right of the Emerging Church movement: Change. He argues: "The emerging church is committed to the idea of change as a constant." Of the five rights he presents, I find this one the most interesting and perhaps the most dangerous.
I want us to first notice where he takes this whole idea. He argues:
What is interesting is that science supports this principle. Nature changes seasonally. Our bodies change every seven years at the cellular level. Ideas and ethics change with generations. We’re constantly becoming or retreating, but we’re always changing because we’re always living into the next moment. New information arises that changes how we think and respond to the world.What this means is that people will see life differently as time progresses. The Internet has radically reshaped our lives and our ability to be influenced by new information. Some of this has led to a consumer mentality and desire for everything new. But some of this has led to a recommitment to everything mentioned above, to what has always made the church the reflection of God that draws people in.
So is he arguing for a theological and ecclesialogical evolution? The answer, I assume, is no, but how can one not get that from this argument. He begins by looking at science. Science notes that things change and adapt over time; a type of evolution. The Church, the argument goes, does the same. He even adds that ideas and ethics have changed over the centuries and seems to argue that this is a good thing.
Is it? Is it really a good thing? Is it really Biblical? I would have to say no. If ethics, especially in ethics, is free to change and yet still be valid, then where does the madness stop. I don't want to put words into Brinks mouth, nor do I want to take his argument where he did not intend on taking it, but where this argument leads is dangerous.
Many today make the same argument for ethics in our culture. Homosexuality was wrong twenty years ago, but things have changed and we know better now. Divorce was wrong years ago, but things have changed. Truth is, as man progresses, things get worse. Therefore, any change in ethics, from a Biblical standpoint, is not good. And to define change as one of the "rights" of a Christian movement is not good at all and is telling where this movement is headed.
The truth is, the Emerging Church is about change. They begin with the change of emphasis on postmodernism. The Church, they argued is being left behind because it is enslaved by modernism. I admit that the critique of the modernistic church is valid, but is the right response to change toward a postmodern one? Won't it become obsolete once the culture gets tired of yet another cultural fad? If this change we can believe in?
The problem with this whole notion of change is that change implies we got it wrong in the first place. As Christians, we must believe that God got it right, Christ got it right, the first church got it right. The problem began whenever we entered change. Some of it has resulted in heresies: Marcion, Arius, Pelagius, Gnosticism, etc. All of these changes turned out to be heresy.
But other forms of change became dangerous too. The many changes that led to the Roman Catholic Church were dangerous, such as the formation of the papacy, wedding State and Church, emphasis on tradition, etc.
The problem is change. In fact, I want to argue that perhaps this is the biggest problem with the Emerging Church, they are changing away from the gospel and Biblical truth and not towards it. The answer to the problems within the Church is not change towards postmodernism, but rather a Reformation and a Revival towards a more Biblical worldview and approach to ecclesiology and ethics. Ideas are great, but unless they are rooted in Scripture, it is not the change that we need.
I applaud the Emerging Church for warning the modern church of the dangers of being stuck in tradition. But it is equally dangerous to abandon tradition because it is simply tradition. The tradition of where one sits on a Sunday morning is a worthless tradition. But preaching as the central act of worship and exhortation is not a worthless tradition. Sadly, it seems that the Emerging Church cares more about changing the preaching and the message preached rather than the selfishness of Mrs. Betty refusing to sit somewhere else.
So we conclude with this dire look at the Emerging Church: they are changing in the wrong direction. Therefore, they have completely misunderstood Christ, Charity, Creed, and we are having the wrong conversation.
Change isn't need. Reformation and Revival is needed. Let us get that right and avoid all of these others wrongs. The answer is in the unchanging transparent gospel, not in postmodern deconstructionism. That is change we can all believe in.
____________
0 comments:
Post a Comment