First off, for those of you who don’t care much about the internal bickerings of people in the Christian church you can go to the next post in your feed reader. This one won’t be very interesting…
Before I get into it, I want to note that I am not a part of the movement that is under scrutiny and I have my own issues with it. My biggest beef here is the way that this person who is (sigh) part of my same family of faith comes at it.
Today I came across a blog post sharply criticizing the Emergent Movement within the Christian church on a blog called Jesus Only a two word “quote” from Matthew 17:8 (KJV of course) that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in context.
Before I begin to critique his critique I want to point out that taking aim at a movement like the Emergent one and making sweeping generalizations is a lot like generalizing about Protestants – you can’t very well. Compound this by the true fact that much of the Emergent Church does have a postmodern bent. The generalizations that “REV” makes are simply too broad. Oh, and he doesn’t document or back up any of them, and as we will see neither do his “sources” (ie. his Blogroll).
Off the bat he uses the buzz word of all buzz words in faith discussions – “heresy”. I know that I used it a small number of months ago and I stand by that post completely. The thing that bothers me most is that he uses it in a similar fashion, but he doesn’t define what he means by it and seems (in the context of the rest of his post) to use it in the sense of something that is literally damnable – as in “going to hell as a result.” He immediately compares it to Al-Queda (sic), tell me that’s not overstating the case… I mean, really, who is the Fundamentalist here?
Next he attempts to compare the Emergent Church to a specific heretical movement (perhaps in both previously mentioned meanings of the word), the Aquarian Gospel movement. Let’s walk through Wikipedia’s list of their distinctives:
The “Aquarian Gospel” makes the following claims, among others:
- Jesus was distinct from Christ, or “The Christ.” By making himself, through effort and prayer, a fit vessel, Jesus enabled The Christ to dwell within him.
- Jesus was conceived by a human father.
- Jesus came to earth to show the way back to God via his lifestyle and teachings. He is the example we must model our own lives after, if we seek salvation.
- Reincarnation exists, and is the explanation for various seeming injustices. Reincarnation allows people to settle debts they have incurred in past lives.
- Humanity has forgotten God and is currently working its way back to fully remembering God.
- Time is separated into ages. These ages last approximately 2,000 years. We are now nearing the start of the Aquarian Age.
- All souls will eventually mature and become perfect, like Jesus, thus ending the cycle of reincarnation.
- No soul is ever abandoned by God.
I can say pretty certainly, that I have never heard any Emergent that I’ve encountered (in person, print or podcast) express these beliefs. The only ones that I might buy are the third one which isn’t entirely heretical, except if the meaning is that we can find Salvation by our works; and the last one, but even then only in this life which isn’t heresy but Arminianism.
Then he begins to bring in his sources, a blog dedicated to “refute the Emergent” named Zits Emerge Truth Abides… hey, I see what you did there! They’re pustules, right? And then talks about how he “didn’t pay enough attention then to even find out what the term meant”.
Again, he compares them to Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… wait, what?! He then talks about how Emergent Christians don’t like to talk about the Gospel and hope that people will merely come to Christ through their good works. Isn’t this the the antithesis of Fundamentalist Islam?! Bro, you’re breaking down into incoherence.
Then, my absolute favorite. He links to a newer edition of the Bible (note, not a new translation it’s NIV, a relatively accepted translation) one that removes some stuff… like chapter and verse numbers (not added until 1551 A.D.), supplementary material besides book descriptions, a reordering of the books themselves (there is no universally accepted order anyhow) to “an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition” and combines books that were probably unified originally (Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Luke-Acts) and (travesty of all travesties) a single column typesetting! Seriously, our friend here gets mad about this stuff even though none of it detracts from what the book actually says… oh and he notes that it “appears” to be linked to the Emergent Movement but provides no basis for that, he just references “a blog.”
Then the sarcasm begins, “This will fix everything that is wrong with the church!”
Finally the post abruptly ends.
I want to talk briefly about his friend, I’ll just call him “Bluto“. Man, this guy has an axe to grind! He does everything he can to undercut the message of the Emergent Church and admits it in his first post:
At times I will simply argue points. Other times I will expose the real nature of the Emergent. Sometimes I will make great fun of their language. This is extremely easy because they cannot talk in a coherent way–the natural outcome of dogmatically holding tightly to the irrational. Case in point: their silly hatred of propositional truth–about which they are constantly making………………drum rolllllll………….REALLY BIG PROPOSITIONS. Still other times I will take on an author line by lie. (No, that was not a typo.)
Okay, so the criticism of postmodern philosophy is something about it that bothers me as well – even if it is overstated; often “postmoderns” are more “pseudo-postmodern” in that it’s less that they don’t believe in truth but that nothing can be taken for granted without investigation. Which was also true of the Anabaptist movement which has passed down to us big portions of modern Evangelical theology and practice. Seriously though, this guy isn’t beyond low blows (even as he criticizes this movement for doing the same thing) – hypocrite much?
Epilogue: I’ve browsed some of Bluto and REV’s other blogs and found two posts that are amazing in their misunderstandings and Puritanical Fundamentalism…
This just in: “postmodern intellectual.” That’s a phrase I just read at another blog. Al Mohler was describing Stanley Fish as a leading “postmodern intellectual.”
He’s right. Fish is an intellectual and he’s postmodern. However, it seems absurd to me that those two words go together.
A postmodern says that we shouldn’t believe much of anything absolutely. Thus, negating the need for any sort of intellectualism at all. It’s like buying a bucket of coal to run your electric razor. If nothing much can be known, why be big on knowing?
Have to go now……I’m going to the store to get ice for the oven. I’m baking a bin of 3/4 inch, fine-thread hex nuts and a ham with Pinse-sol glaze for Passover.
Is it just me or is that last part completely unintelligible?
Their method is to turn the traditional church on it’s head embrace all heresies as authentic belief.
Emergers are reported to congregate in bars and house churches when no established church will host them. They trade traditional communion for house parties, and some of their members report widespread use of hallucinogenic drugs within their ranks.
Embracing all heresies? Is that even possible?! Oh, and we can’t have house churches like they did in the Bible! Oh and don’t forget we can’t drink alcohol just because none of the church fathers did. Oh, and the “widespread use” of drugs… yeah, one post from one blog talking about people in a negative way who “give slight attention to Christ and church” as well as smoke marijuana – yeah, real widespread.
Okay, I think I’ve written about enough. If you’ve read this all the way through, just shoot me a comment so I know if my past two hours were worth it… cheers!
