Theology and Emergence

[Cole J. Banning]

This morning, Tony Jones embedded the following video on Christian orthodoxy tests in one of his blog posts:

(If the embedded video isn't working for some reason or other, you'll want to watch it here.)

Whether a Christian thinks homosexuality is a sin or not seems to matter in a very different way as we attempt to build the Kingdom than whether one believes that the Holy Spirit flows only from the First Person of the Trinity and not from the First and Second Persons, but I take the point. We--with "we" being the entire catholic Church, or at least all of Western Christianity (i.e., Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Protestantism; I don't make any claims to knowledge about Eastern Orthodoxy)--don’t talk enough anymore about the Trinity, about the Holy Eucharist, etc. (Although I think this criticism is particularly levelable against the emergent church movement, which sometimes seems to eschew high-falutin’ theology in favor of “relational dialogue.” My "evening church," the quasi-emergent Circle of Hope falls as subject to that criticism as anyone--not that I think the Episcopal Church is any better on the macro level, and my home parish certainly isn't on the micro level.) As Christians, we need to talk about these things much more, although probably as well as rather than instead of the more sexy culture war issues.

I wonder how this understanding fits into Jones' anti-denominationalism, however. I mean, there’s nothing I can think of which would stop a Unitarian and a Trinitarian from breaking bread together inside an emergent church faith community (although Jones points to the relational nature of the Trinity as one of the ...), and a move away from denominationalism opens up the potential for a dialogue between them which wouldn’t exist if they both stayed with home churches which each taught their own particular brand of theology. But what would a belief in transubstantiation (or heck, even just the Real Presence or sacramental unity) look like outside the context of an ordained presbyterate? And what would dialogue look like between someone who accepts the authority of the deuterocanonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures and one who doesn’t?

I guess another way of asking my question is: Is there an implicit claim about normative theological authority already structured into the emergent praxis? And if so, what is it, and what relation does it hold to the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral and the Anglican three-legged stool? In what ways does emergent praxis structure the content of our theological doctrine in addition to the methodology of our evangelization? Is the emergent church's particular style of "being Church" going to lead us to a different conclusion on, say, the nature of Hell, than would an alternate ecclesiology? (And if so, what implications does that have for an "Anglimergent" attempt to fuse emergent praxis with Anglican ecclesiology?)

The larger point, of course, is that the authenticity of any person's Christianity shouldn't be called into question based on any sort of test of orthodoxy, whether it surrounds cultural/political issues or fine points of doctrine. But it also seems to be the case that there might just be more tensions in an Anglo-Catholic understanding of emergence than just whether the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church requires the historic episcopate.

[Sister Gloriamarie Amalfitano]

I think the far more important question before the emergent church us this: what is the emergent church doing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, provide for those unable to provide for themselves?

Quite frankly, I am weary of what we, back in the day, called "head talk". As far as I am concerned, the only relevant definition of orthodoxy are the Creeds and the Baptismal Covenant. The Two Great Commandments tell me to love God with everything I am and have and to love my neighbor as myself. The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches me that everyone in the world is my neighbor.

Therefore if we Christians engaged in loving the Lord our God with all our hearts, strengths, souls and minds; if we loved our neighbors as ourselves by feeding the hungry,clothing the naked, caring for the sick, providing for those unable to provide for themselves, showing compassion and hospitality to all who crossed our paths, I believe we would fall into bed at night to exhausted to care about who was able in this harsh world to find with whom.

[Cole J. Banning]

I agree with you that that is, indeed, the far more important question. But I'm uncertain how we can work out the practical application of what that looks like without the head talk--especially if we accept a model of justice which requires aggressive social action alongside the works of mercy, which in general the emergent movement seems to do(?).

[Jon F. Dewey]

I liked the cartoon. It exposes a very real problem we are having in the over-arching umbrella we call the church.

I am in the process of writing a book on this subject. Doctrine and theology is vital. Without it, we cease to be what we claim to be. I am always incredulous that there are individuals who claim to be Christian (and are active clergy also!) who deny outright the existence of God, Jesus, biblical inspiration, and other historically affirmed doctrines. If someone claimed to be a believer in Islam, but denied the existence of Mohammed, this person would immediately be called a non-believer, because you cannot be one and deny the central point of their faith. Yet we regularly allow that exact same type of behavior in the Christian church. I guess we are too polite or something to say anything about it.

We reject doctrine at our peril. The implications of denying doctrines we chose to dismiss are very far reaching, and can have unintended results.

We feed the poor, visit the sick, care for the dying, and take up social causes not because its trendy or because we personally get anything out of it. We do it because its a command and example of our Lord and Savior. Jesus must be who we say He is in our doctrine and creeds because if He isn't, then the end result is He has no authority to command us at all. If Jesus is not deity, then he has no actual authority to command us. If Jesus is simply another guy, why should I care what He says?

That's just an example. The Emergent church will make the same error as other movements in the past if there is not a firm grasp of the basics. We really are not allowed to believe what we want to believe. There are lots of ways to express what we believe, but there is only one thing we believe. History shows us that without the firm foundation of right doctrine and theology, there is nothing to stop any movement from becoming an aberration.

[Carlton Kelley]

Relationships are to be nourished and cultivated in all healthy ways possible, but please do not forget that every developing relationship goes through a period of definition.  Theology is developed in relationship and becomes more clearly defined as people begin to trust - and love - one another. While we live in an age when boundaries of any kind are considered by many to be bad, we forget that they are vitally - literally - necessary - to every living thing.  Without our skin, we would have no way to exist - there would be nothing to hold us together. Theology acts as a skin, if you will, for the church and protects us from believing things about God that simply aren't true in classical Christianity. For example, a God who does not believe in medical care is a God who does not care about the life and health and the world that God's children inhabit. It is very important to have a theological position that recognizes the God who suffers with us and is not aloof and unconcerned about all of creation. Theology and relationships need not be in conflict with one another.  The church gets into a world of trouble when these two understanding are allowed to be separeted.  Have  binaries ever worked?

[Fr. Thomas Beasley+]

Sister Gloriamarie Amalfitano: You are absolutely correct. If Jesus were to have a sound bite, today, it might look something like this: " Love God ... Love People ... Nothing else matters." From my read of the gospels, the focus of Jesus' message is that when we do that, the Kingdom of God is near. And the Kingdom seems to be his primary focus.

I once heard years ago a message by Jamie Buckingham that went something like this; Americans don’t understand the idea of a Kingdom because we threw the tea in the Bay. However, our British cousins do. They know that wherever the king (or as it is now, Queen) is, there is the kingdom.

I would add to Jamie’s comment that the promise that Jesus gives to his Church - that wherever two or three of his followers are gathered in his name, he is in the midst of them - would indicate that when we are gathered in his name, performing those activities you catalogued so well for us (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, providing for those unable to provide for themselves) as he directed us to do in Matthew’s gospel, not only is Jesus in our midst, but also, the Kingdom as well ... because wherever the King is ... there is the Kingdom.

[Scott Elliott]

Fr Beasley:

I think you are correct that Jesus would say something along those lines, but I'm pretty sure he's add "...love yourself...," and he would be unlikely to say "... nothing else matters." Your attributed words, combined with mine, simply are the Summary of the Law, upon which hang all the Law and the Prophets -- but Jesus taught of a good deal more than just that. More likely, I think, he would say that everything else matters in that context -- that nothing matters other than in the context of love -- of God, other, and self.

 

And I don't think Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is near when we love; I think he said the Kingdom of God is near -- so we'd do well to love. To suggest that the kingdom of God is brought near by human love, whether love of God, other, or of self, then Man controls God and that just won't do. The Kingdom of God is brought near by God, and the human response to that fact is, or ought to be, to love. Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom is near, and he did so by loving; so also, by loving, we proclaim the nearness of the Kingdom. But we do not cause it to come near -- it's going to do that anyway.

 

The distinction is more important than it might sound, because it's the difference between religion and magic. Aggressive atheism protests bitterly against Christianity (and other religions, I suppose), but the second of the two most telling criticisms is against superstitious magical Spaghetti-Monster, Invisible-Friend-in-the-Sky "theology." That is, aggressive atheism protests not religion, but magic, but Christianity is not magic, but religion.

 

Sr Gloriamarie:

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/danielschultz/3830/not...

 

Dcn Scott Elliott

Diocese of Chicago

 

[Cole J. Banning]

To suggest that the kingdom of God is brought near by human love, whether love of God, other, or of self, then Man controls God and that just won't do.

 

That assumes that our love of God, other, and self is ever possible outside of the opportunity of God's grace, which I'd argue is false. To suggest we could control God would be heresy of the most obvious kind. But that doesn't mean God cannot use us as vehicles for the in-coming of the Kingdom, which is what I think the other commentators are suggesting.

[Scott Elliott]

Yes, exactly.

/Scott

[Jon F. Dewey]

This is part of the point I was trying to make. By not having sound doctrine and theology, we cannot know the "why" of our works.  The church does not exist merely to be a social work or social transformation agency.  We love others, feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc, because of the overflow of love in our hearts that is directed at our Savior in gratitude for His work of salvation.  It is a flowing outward of the reality that happened inward.  It is not by human efforts alone.

[Fr. Thomas Beasley+]

          Actually, Mr. Eliott, my statement is not that original in concept. Bishop Agustine of Hippo stated it slightly differently;"Love God and do as you please.' What the good bishop insinuated by that, I think, is that if you love God what you please to do is to please God.

          My addition of loving people as well as God only fulfills the whole law. Also, I am aware that if you do not love yourself, you'll have a difficult time loving others including God. Bernard of Clairvaux alluded to this in his Steps of Humility, I think.

          A very good article that touches upon your concerns can be found here: http://upwardandonward.com/wordpress/love-god-and-do-as-you-please/

          Finally, if God were somehow controlled by our love, what we would be expressing would not be love . . . it would be manipulation. When we gather in his name, he, not me, promised to be in the midst of us. Because of that promise, and not because of our manipulations, the Kingdom would be there also, if Jamie Buckingham's deffinition of kingdom is correct. It is not about manipulation at all but only concerns relationships, and that my friend is the focus of all the Law and the Prophets - our relationship to God, to others and to ourselves.