Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Emergent/Emerging Church


by 5 Comments

Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Jeremy S. Begbie

Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

This is the seventh part of a ten post series on Nicholas Perrin’s and Richard B. Hays’, eds., Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Daniel James Levy has partnered with me to write a review of each chapter. To see previous posts scroll to the bottom of this one for a list. Today we will be discussing Jeremy S. Begbie’s contribution.

Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come: Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies”

Begbie begins by pointing out the influx of literature related to ecclesiology in the last couple of decades. Most books and articles have been characterized by a fascination with people “who may be attracted by the person of Christ and a broadly based ‘spirituality’ but who shrink at the idea of joining a local congregation’ (p. 183). These types have been characterized as the “emerging church” which “can embody and promote an effective missional engagement with late- or postmodern society, especially with the unchurched”(p. 184). What is surprising is that this group is “young”. They “challenge long-running assumptions”. They’re against anything that snacks of “professional management, centralized organizational structure, control through tight hierarchies, strong ties to places and buildings, and so forth” yet most admire Wright who was “an Anglican bishop, well past his first flush of youth, a powerful figurehead in an ancient institution many would regard a highly bureaucratic…a major land-owner with a huge commitment to buildings, able to move only with glacial slowness down antediluvian ecclesiastical valleys.” (p. 185)

So why do “emerging church” types like N.T. Wright?

This is what Begbie seeks to answer, especially as it relates to his reading of the Apostle Paul.

Five Features of Wright’s Ecclesiology:

Begbie begins by looking at five characteristics of Wright’s ecclesiology:

(1) Integral: The church is central to Wright (and Paul’s) theological vision. This matters to those thinking about the future of the church. Part of being saved is being part of the community of Christ.

Wright reacts against a Protestantism that is founded on “voluntarist contractualism”. This is how Begbie describes it:

“….a philosophically and politically shaped individualism still very much alive in our culture, fueled by the liberal ideology of choice. In this scheme individuals secure their identity prior to being part of the church by exercising a wholly unconstrained act of will in response to the gospel, a cognitive and conscious decision for Christ that ensures salvation and a place in heaven. Subsequently, and through a quite distinct act of the will, the saved person joins a church, understood in purely visible and localized terms, and as an aggregate of individual believers, related to each other (solely?) by virtue of their resolution to commit to Christ and to this particular group. Thus relationships within the church are seen as merely instrumental to the strengthening of each member’s ‘relationship with the Lord.’”

Wright connects the church to the story of Israel. This makes the church part of the story of Abraham and his greatest child, the Messiah. Since Wright grounds the church in the community that is Messiah’s he avoids false dichotomies like atonement and ecclesiology or justification and ecclesiology. To be saved is not an individual thing. It goes back into the great family of God because of Christ. This impacts his criticism of those who do not give the church, as a whole, more respect. (pp. 188-190)

(2) Eschatological: Wright’s ecclesiology is future oriented. He sees the New Creation as our hope toward which the church works. This church moves by the Spirit toward the day when what happened at Easter will happen to the cosmos. Yet in the meantime it is the church who groans (Rom. 8.18-25) with creation waiting for God’s final redemption.

Begbie sees the future looking ecclesiology as appealing to emergent groups. It gives hope and something to seek. Those in emerging churches find this as a useful model for their (social) engagement with society. (pp. 191-192)

(3) Cosmically situated: This has to do with “ecological alertness”. Since Wright follows the Apostle Paul in seeing the creation redeemed this provides grounds for creation care. Again, see Rom. 8.18-25. (pp. 192-193)

(4) Material: Wright’s reading of Paul causes him to affirm the goodness of the material world and this is something that emerging churches appreciate. It moves theology away from mere metaphysics to something tangible in history. This leads to a theology that addresses the real world. It is not merely our personal, ethereal relationship with Jesus that matters but also our physically connected relationship with others and the world around us. Our gospel doesn’t just speak to individual souls but it confronts all levels, even world politics. It is an earthy gospel that Wright proclaims and that emerging churches adopt. (pp. 193-196)

(5) Improvisatory: Since Wright’s ecclesiology promotes improvisation in our “act” of the great cosmic drama the emerging churches find it an ally as they seek to navigate the waters of where the world is going. The emergent church doesn’t seek to relive “the good ol’ days”, but it tries to be God’s people for these days. (pp. 196-197)

Forgotten Themes:

What are some forgotten ecclesiological themes that Wright addresses?

(1) Ascension: This is the doctrine that comes after resurrection (Wright will not conflate it like Borg, Crossan, or others). This doctrine reminds us that Christ still reigns over the church. He is physically present in the heavenlies. This prevents the church from thinking she is in complete control as if Christ is completely absent. (pp. 197-200)

(2) Israel: Wright wants to make sure that the church doesn’t divorce itself from Israel’s story. It began as a Jewish movement. It must not move so far away from those roots that it loses its identity. (p. 200)

(3) Catholicity:  Wright makes a distinction between “qualitative” catholicity and “extensive” catholicity. The first emphasizes that the church cannot give in to social divisions (as Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Gentiles, male nor female, slave nor free). The church shares a new humanity in Christ. The church shares the Spirit. We are radically united. The second emphasizes the “spatial extension of the church”. Wright tries to walk the line between not being overinstitutionalized while not being anti-institutional. (pp. 201-207)

Wright’s response: 

Wright says that Begbie helped him realize he has been “expounding an ecclesiology…without being aware of it.” (p. 208) Wright thinks one reason why the emerging church has come to appreciate his work is because they both share interest in the Kingdom of God motif. Wright clarifies a bit on his views on the ascension (referring readers to Acts for Everyone). He notes some of the dangers of the emerging church (e.g. cultural homogeneity, church-shopping, the overemphasis on spontaneity and authenticity when overreacting against institutionalized church, the naive misunderstanding of leadership, and so forth).

Concluding thoughts:

This chapter helps the reader understand Wright’s ecclesiology. It helps us see what he has done well and what he has wrestled with as forgotten themes. It shows why the emerging church like Wright, but also gives Wright a chance to note where he finds the emerging church lacking.

Schedule for this series:

06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)

06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)

06/15: Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends: Jesus and the Justice of God” (Brian LePort)

06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)

06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)

07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)

07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)

07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)

07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)

08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?”  (Daniel James Levy)

About these ads


by 6 Comments

Is Emergent and Fundamentalist Christianity Being Remarketed?

Together for the Gospel

Will Lee has begun writing a series of post on the group known as Together for the Gospel (T4G) that I found very interesting (see here and here). It needs to be read carefully so you can know what he is and is not saying. One thing toward which he gives much attention is the sort of “bait-and-switch” presentation of a movement like Together for the Gospel (and may we add The Gospel Coalition by extension?). The slogans being used would suggest that this is a sort of minimalist fellowship. There is an effort to set aside denominational distinctives in order to gather around the one thing that is essential to Christianity–the gospel.

Sadly, as Lee notes, there is a list of “Affirmations and Denials” that includes all kinds of secondary issues. Article I affirms “inerrancy”; Article III speaks against postmodernism; Article XIII affirms “imputation”; Article XVI promotes the complementarian understanding of gender roles…you get the picture. While you may or may not affirm these doctrines one thing we must be clear about, which Lee rightly exposes, is that this is not about “being together for the gospel.”.

The Gospel Coalition

The Gospel Coalition is more of the same (see here). Their confessional statement includes an affirmation of the historical Adam and Eve and a description of gender roles that is essentially complementarian (3. “Creation of Humanity”) and while it is vague in juxtaposition to that of those who are part of Together for the Gospel the fact that most of the participants are Reformed or semi-Reformed tells me a lot more than the confessional statement.

In many ways we either have a form of neo-Fundamentalism being repackaged in such a way that the pill is easier to swallow if it is covered in tasty “gospel” coating or we have essentially a neo-Reformed movement finding a new way to sell their brand of Christianity. While I have Calvinist leanings myself I have heard John Piper (in a sermon he did on Athanasius) speak about the Calvinist-Arminian debate in such a matter as to suggest he will not be satisfied until we all pray toward Geneva three times a day. I’m going to guess that most Arminian types don’t plan on going to a Gospel Coalition meeting any time soon.

I need to be fair though. I don’t think that it is the far conservative side of American Christianity that is alone in repackaging their brand. It is the further left side as well.

Emergent

For a while many of us have wondered what happened to the “emerging church” or more specifically “Emergent” since the former refused to be “defined” until it slipped away into the history of other fads (I know, I know, there are many who will disavow this saying that “Emergent” is alive and well, but I think that if you are honest you will notice it isn’t receiving nearly as much attention as it did a few years ago). It seems to me that “Emergent” is being revamped and resold under a new title: “Big Tent Christianity“.

I saw some pictures from a recent meeting of people who are “big tent” and it included Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Jay Baker, and so forth and so on. You know, the so-called “outlaw” preachers. Those with a creed that there is no creed except whatever creed they communicate through winks and special handshakes. You get the idea.

Big Tent Christianity

Do “movements” evolve? Sure, I know Pentecostalism partially morphed into the Charismatic Movement which partially morphed into something called “Third Wave”. It happens. It may be good and it may be bad. Who is to know?! I don’t know if The Gospel Coalition is a healthier form of fellowship amongst Reformed churches. I don’t know if “Big Tent Christianity” will give new life to “Emergent”. All I am saying is that “there is nothing new under the sun”. For most of us Christians who want to live our lives; love our local church family; care for our wives, kids, and even grandchildren; pay the bills and fix the leaky tire on our car, don’t worry and don’t hurry to become part of the latest and greatest.* By the time you settle down it will be called something else.

______________________________________
* I know people from these movements all want to love their church, their family, and so forth. I am not saying that they don’t. All I am saying is that those who are just trying to live their faith in their world day-to-day without worrying about brand names should not think of themselves as somehow missing out on something.


by 3 Comments

The Emerging Movement is Dead. What Now?

In a recent article Anthony Bradley summarized the demise of the movement formally known as “emerging”:

From Brian McLaren to Erwin McManus to Rob Bell to Tony Jones to Mark Driscoll and others, the theological lines have been drawn and are settled. We have all moved on. We know who fits into evangelicalism, post-liberalism, Anabaptism, Calvinism, and so on.

This is dead on. I know, I know, there is a difference between “Emergent” and “emerging”. Let us be honest–it is a semantic difference at best. In all reality “there is nothing new under the sun”. The emerging movement has demised and those who were part of it (whatever it was) has settled into pre-established ecclesiological categories. In fact, when Sojourners Magazine did a recent article on emergent titled “Is the Emergent Church for Whites Only?”  I wondered if the next issue would address the “Jesus People” .

In my opinion Andrew Jones is asking the right question–“What is happening in the church, now?”  It likely has to do little with European and North American evangelicals drifiting toward post-liberalism and more with global Christianity. In other words, read less Brian McLaren, more Philip Jenkins.

On a side note, it is funny how Pentecostalism–a movement that did not care about popular culture–is second to Catholicism globally (another movement that doesn’t care about culture, at least since the Enlightenment) in size. Ecclesiological movements that rise with the cultural tide also fall with it. Will we ever learn?


by 5 Comments

George O. Wood Responds to Tony Jones, et al.

I was informed that George O. Wood, the Superintedent of the Assemblies of God, intended to respond to the controversy regarding his critique of Tony Jones being at the annual meeting for the Society for Pentecostal Studies. He addressed the issue live on MinistryDirect.com so I decided I would listen.

I found his response calm and respectful. He appealed to (1) his responsibility as an “overseer” and (2) the Society of Pentecostal Studies association with the World Pentecostal Fellowship (of which he is an executive board member) as reason for him expressing concern. He says he feels that he spoke as many other global Pentecostal leaders would have spoke.

Wood said the AOG did not threaten to boycott SPS but he did say that such a direction could lead to the AOG deciding not the fund their scholars for SPS (though free to go using their own funds). The problem was not the subject being discussed. The problem was giving Jones, an open advocate of same sex marriage, a platform. He felt that the Apostle Paul would not have given a platform like this to someone in the church of Corinth.

I was unaware of the partnership between the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the World Pentecostal Fellowship (WPF). This partnership makes me think Wood had all the right to question SPS’s decision. Apparently, SPS is not an independent academic society. If there is a relationship between SPS and WPF then the SPS, by default, has the primary purpose of serving the church. Likewise, Sanchez-Walsh and others have the right to form another fellowship free from any associations if they think it will allow them more academic freedom.

Wood did say that academic freedom must work with academic responsibility. He said that for Christian scholars this means Scriptural fidelity. Again, if SPS is for the embetterment of the church then the leadership of the church has a right to express their feelings on the matter. Jones has not labored for the health of the Pentecostal movement. He has less invested in it than Wood and others, nor does he care about their spiritual well-being like Wood. I am inclined to side with the AOG superintendent on this one.


by 4 Comments

What Do Emergence and Pentecostalism Have to Learn from One Another?

Tony Jones is scheduled to present a paper at the upcoming meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies. In preparation he is asking “So, what does the emerging church have to learn from Pentecostalism, and what does Pentecostalism has to learn from the emerging church?” As one who may be considered Pentecostal (some Pentecostals may reject this statement), as well as one who at one point was very interested in the development of the emerging church, I think I may have a few thoughts on this matter.

Since I think I have more to say to what the emerging church can learn from Pentecostalism I will limit my contribution to that side of the discussion. There are several points I will attempt to make here that I hope may be found helpful.

(1) Do not allow distinctive characteristics to move you toward anti-catholicity. One of the serious problems with the Pentecostal movement is that she has often become so concerned with her distinctive characteristics, like glossolalia and freedom of expression in worship, that it has made her turn a cold shoulder to identifying with other Christians. This is partially to blame on the fact that the early years of the Pentecostal movement were scarred by partial persecution from other Christians. Nevertheless, our response has left us bankrupt of tradition at times as well as antagonistic to a broader Christianity that for the most part would likely be more welcoming to some of our distinctive characteristics or at least to fellowship in spite of those characteristics.

(2) Do maintain essential, important, reforming characteristics. As the old adage goes, “The most segregated time of the week in the United States is Sunday morning.” At Azusa Street this was not so. Christians gathers in the name of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was our identity. As Pentecostalism aged she forgot about these humble, cross-cultural beginnings and she slowly made racial reconciliation a non-priority. Sadly, Pentecostalism is as racially divided in many places as the rest of the church.

Equally, we noticed that God uses women and that there is “neither male or female” in Christ. Yet over time we bought into older, decontextualized readings of the Scriptures that limited female involvement. In response, some of our independent churches have pushed too hard for female equality which has led to some women pastors who have no doctrinal backbone at all (much like what is seen in some mainstream churches). We should have been more intentional regarding developing our understanding of women in the church rather than reacting to Protestant, Reformed readings of various passages.

The emerging church has made some moves that Pentecostalism made a century before the emerging church was coming into fruition. It is my hopes that the emerging church, if it is not a fad (which is yet to be seen), will at least contribute to our progress in the areas that Pentecostalism intended to contribute at her beginning.

(3) Do not forsake solid doctrine. This is my greatest fear for the emerging church. She seems to be anti-doctrinal. Everyone has the right, at times, to reconsider his/her beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with Catholic and Orthodox theologians who argue that the Christian must simply adopt what was handed down because the reality of the matter is that in some cases not everything handed down is true or at least relevant anymore. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone has the right to deconstruct the content of the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Constantinopolitan Creed. If the emerging church wants to rethink eschatology or ethics, fine. Let what is essential about Christianity remain free from prodding or the heresy tag be inevitable.

As for Pentecostals please consider Gordon Fee. He is doctrinally sound, faithful to the Scripture, dedicated to exegesis and accurate hermeneutics, yet distinctive as a Pentecostal. Our greatest fault as Pentecostals is that we marginalize our most brilliant, biblically faithful theologians whenever they question the nature of our distinctive characteristics (e.g. speaking in tongues, the nature of the gifts in corporate worship).

It would be wonderful to see someone incorporate some emerging church aspects with biblical exegetical faithfulness. At this point I cannot think of that person. Those like Driscoll and Kimball who would be named (or even Andrew Jones) seem to have move away or are moving away from the emerging church label. This could be bad for the movement. If this happens you become simply another form of liberal Protestantism (which is fine, but all this means is that your movement was incorporated into an already existing form of Christianity, once again spelling out the demise of the ‘emerging church’ as something distinctive).

(4) Do continue to push the social side of the gospel (without resurrecting the ‘social gospel’ movement). Pentecostalism began on the other side of the tracks. We have historically been a movement that cared for the poor. Sadly, it seems that once we matured there are some who became afraid of social action associating it with the ‘social gospel movement’. I find this disappointing.

The gospel is the be holistically embodied which includes word and deed. So I applaud the emerging church for speaking about social issues (although at times I am not sure about the direction many have taken because it seems to be simply an anti-Dobson, anti-Robertson, anti-Falwell approach). I just hope that (a) it doesn’t become solely a social gospel movement or (b) ditches that characteristic.

(5) Listen to your critics because it provides balance. Sometimes I wish Pentecostalism would have ignored her critics (racial integration, women in ministry) but other times I wish there would have been more humble listening (sacraments, maintaining order in worship, the importance of tradition). I hope the emerging church will listen to her critics because there are some important things that need to be heard. If the emerging church is to avoid becoming radical for the sake of being radical or irrelevant for the sake of simply become something that already exist (again, I see it moving toward mainline Protestantism, at least as regards capital “E” Emergent) she need to listen to other Christians. Yes, even John Piper and D.A. Carson care about the church which is why I think they (sometimes rightly) attack the emerging church. If you can at least listen to the critiques you may avoid some of the mistakes that Pentecostalism made over the years.

All that being said I am a “Pentecostal” who attends a Baptist church (Imago Dei here in Portland, which is not an emerging church) as well as a non-denomination, yet characteristically Baptist, seminary. As much as I love the Pentecostal movement some of the very problems that I have alluded to here (as well as others like anti-educationalism) have led me to step away for the time being. So maybe I am disqualified to speak to this subject. Nevertheless, I thought I would toss my few cents into the pond. Maybe someone will find value in what was said.


by Leave a comment

The Emerging Church has Emerged (= Died)

I am not sure what it is about all this “emergent church is dead” talk but I find it somewhat interesting (e.g. here and here). Especially because it is has become so satirically brilliant! Rick Bennett has written an ‘Obituary for the Emerging Church‘ which he followed by declaring the one thing the emergent church may not want to hear: you have emerged! This echoed Andrew Jones’ post of the types of emerging churches that “no longer upset your grandfather“. The thesis of these writers is pretty simple: Listen, emerging church, you have arrived and now you are just another aspect of global Christianity.

Others like Tony Jones (here) have tried to emphasize that the emerging church is as “radical” as ever. But as Andrew Jones told him, “The controversy you are stirring up seems unrelated to the main emphasis of the emerging church movement.” It seems to me that those in the emerging church who want to retain that aspect of being “controversial” aren’t doing anything that Anglican church or the ECLA are doing? As far as worship is concerned Catholics and Orthodox have been using candles and pictures for a long, long time. Even the virtual church movement is more cutting edge and controversial than the emerging church.

So what could kill the emerging church? Well, if it emerged. If it became just another aspect of Christianity. I think it has done just that. So welcome emerging church, you have done a lot to help change Christianity in some areas but it appears you have emerged.

So what’s next?