The Emerging Emergents

One of my professors in grad school told us that we should always remember that our papers for him (and eventually the books/articles we would write) would never be "done."  When we turn them in or submit them for publication, we are simply ending our work for the time being, and opening things up for conversation and discussion.  We are never "finished" in other words.

Having published two books and lots of articles since that class, I can attest that in many ways it is a true statement.  No matter how comprehensive the research, there are always going to be sources that are missed.  No matter how well you discuss something, there always seems to be something else (often times new, sometimes derived from what it is you've published) that you wish you had included/known about.  And no matter what your bibliography looks like, it never seems to fail that the moment you publish something (or send back the proofs to the editor), a new book or article lands on your desk that would have been awesome (and maybe even transformed) what you just considered to be "done."

As we enter the second year since the publication of The Mainline, perhaps the most glaring thing I wish that I had included was discussion of the Emerging movement.  It is not because I had not heard about it, I had.  It is not that I had not thought about including them, I did.  It is just that by the time I really listened and thought, the manuscript was at a place where I didn't know where the emergents would fit into the narrative.  And, to be honest, when you are in the last stage of manuscript writing (and you know the next time you get something from the press it will be proofs), tackling a whole new body of literature for a few paragraphs really doesn't seem worth it.  Or, at least it didn't to me at the time!

That being said, if there has been one thing nagging me about the final form The Mainline took (even if it hasn't been something that has been raised by reviewers or readers, at least not to my knowledge) it is that the Emergents didn't make it into the final product.  For those of you who have never heard of the term, let me sum up the movement in very broad terms (while also pointing you to an excellent article by Scot McKnight here from Christianity Today).  The Emergent Church movement seeks to find the best way(s) to "do Church" in a post modern world, and its focus tends to be on how to live their faith in the world.

To some, the Emergent movement has become the chief opponent of the Religious Right, surpassing attempts by the old Mainline to form a sort of counter Religious Left, by appealing to evangelicals directly (espescially younger ones) who grew up within conservative congregations.  These disgruntled (?) or maybe displeased Christians have grown tired of the cultural wars of their parents, the desire for political power and influence by some church members, and feel let down by such engagement because they feel that such actions really aren't what their faith is about.  That is perhaps true for some members of the Emergent community, but hopes that such a movement will fit seamlessly into liberal politics are bound to be ultimately frustrating (many Emergents, for example, remain opposed to abortion), and just as disappointing (after all, being active in the political sphere is what caused some of these believers to depart from the Religious Right to begin with, remember).

If there is one thing that the Emergents do offer my take on the new Mainline, it would be to remember that American Christianity is deeply complex -- much more so than it is often given credit for -- and not as easily captured by labels (Religious Right, Religious Left, Emergent) as we in academia (and many in the general public) would like to think.  And if that is all there was to the Emergent movement, that would probably be where this blog post (and any additional material that might find its way into a second edition of The Mainline) would end.  But, it isn't.  Because while Brian McLaren is perhaps one of the best known proponents of the Emerging Movement in the United States, it was another pastor (or now I guess, former pastor) who really brought the movement to the attention of Americans outside evangelical circles:  Rob Bell.

Bell is the former megachurch pastor from Michigan, who turned away from the pulpit after both a spiritual awakening/conflict (depending on how you look at it) and the firestorm of both praise and debate of his 2011 book Love Wins (in which he questions the existence of an eternal Hell).  While this post is not a critique of either the book or the theology behind Bell's stance on matters of faith (if you want to read some of those, take a look at this, or this, or this), I raise Bell because he is perhaps the best example of the biggest problem I see with where Emergent theology fits within the scope of American Religious History, and that is post modernism.

Like McKnight, I agree that the emphasis on post modernism by some Emergents, and their critics, can be to much of a good/bad thing.  But if a bedrock of Emergent theology is that we can never know for sure, that truth is an abstraction (more or less), or that it makes us uncomfortable to think that there might be a Hell (where people we know might end up if they are not saved), then this flies in the face of not only what the majority of Christians in America have and do believe right up to the present, but also what Christianity has taught since its emergence.  While Christianity might be diverse in its application/manifestations, while its form has (and probably will continue to) changed, the rejection of truth seemingly has little pace within the Christian experience.  Indeed, if post modernism is correct about truth, how can it be true!  Twisting the word "truth" to mean the same thing as "opinion" or "belief" (such as "that is my truth") is a further undercutting of the very concept that somethings are right or wrong (your "truth" might be that 2+2=5, but that doesn't make your arithmetic correct).  And if there is a Hell, its existence should make Christians uncomfortable (not because they believe that God cannot abide by sin, and those who remain unrepentant must be banished from His holy presence) but rather because it is their holy duty to bring the Good News to the lost and unsaved.

While I'm going to keep thinking about such things (perhaps for that second edition of The Mainline), I'm also going to say based on the first edition, that if the Emergent movement follows the post modern path, it is likely to run out of steam.  If, on the other hand, it serves to remind us of the complexity of American Christianity (and Global Christianity as well), then it might just have a place at the table for years to come.