A while back I wrote something about the so-called "emerging church" movement. In retrospect, I see that it was kind of a mean-spirited article, so for that I apologize. Well recently, the rector of St. Mark's gave me a copy of the latest issue of Christianity Today, which contains an article about this movement by one of its leaders and theologians. Also, my parents went to one of their church's denominational meetings a few weeks back, where a teaching elder spoke about this movement. We spoke at length about his presentation over the phone one evening. So now I find myself compelled to blog about it once again, but hopefully in a nicer and more charitable way.
I want to focus on one important aspect of this movement, namely its rejection of systematic theologies. The movement loves ideas and theologies, but it doesn't believe in an airtight system or statement of faith, or a system that possibly "gets it all right". It doesn't have a systematic theology or theologian that characterizes it (e.g. Calvin, Aquinas, etc.). God revealed a story, not a theology. He reveals Himself through events, not propositions. According to McKnight, "...all theology [is] a conversation about the Truth who is God in Christ through the Spirit, and about God's story of redemption at work in the church." In other words, it is an ongoing dialogue, not a "set in stone for all time" system. It says, "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong: What do you think? Let's talk." (quotes from CT article) What people believe is not as important as how they live.
While I would certainly agree that systematic theologies, and theology in general, as a meta-language, is limited, and does not provide an Olympian view of God or the universe, and while I also would agree that God reveals Himself primarily through events rather than propositions (Moltmann), I would disagree that grand systems and systematic theologies are entirely irrelevent today, which is what some in these groups seem to suggest. It really depends a lot on the person. One of the great errors of our day is to assume that everyone approaches various phenomena in the same way that we do. Quite simply, there are still many people out there that still find grand, unifying narratives to be extremely helpful in sorting out the stories of the bible and the tradition of the Church. Yes, even today in this postmodern world!
And besides that, I would say that it is impossible to avoid forming at least a basic systematic theology. It is human nature to look for unifying themes in things, and to systematize disparate phenomena. We see this in something as simple as looking for pictures in clouds and stars. It is human nature to search for order, or to create order, out of disorder. Besides that, grand systems and basic, set assumptions are still used in this postmodern world in a multitude of other fields, so why would they be less important or irrelevent to people in their quest of knowing God? McKnight says that "truth" is important to emerging Christians and churches, and that they believe Jesus is the truth, and that the Bible is truth, the question is what does that mean? Why is Jesus the truth? What does it mean when it says no one comes to the Father except through Him? Asking all of these questions invariably leads to a theology that works together as a system. Not a perfect system, but a rational system nonetheless.
The problem lies more, I think, with how these systematic theologies have been appropriated in recent years, with certain people making them out to be systems that give an Olympian view of the universe. No theology is that way, though. And while some people do not find long systematic theologies and rational, unifying systems to be spiritually helpful, jettisoning them altogether, or downplaying dogma, is not the answer. In fact, I believe that in the long run, elevating "dialogue" over dogma will be extremely damaging to people spiritually. The two must always be held in a creative tension, which is not easy. Yes, Christianity is journey, and living in truth is a journey, but there is also "truth". The ancient Church, as decentralized and multicultural as that was, saw dogmatic truthes as being very important (e.g. the Christological controversies and the Creeds). What we believe is as important as what we do, and the two overlap and influence each other.
So many movements in the Church are reactionary. They suffer from breaking radically with the past, and denouncing it completely rather than growing from it. We see this in the catholic world with regard to the "hated" Middle Ages. The Middle Ages and everything Medieval seems to have been the whipping boy of the 20th century (and they're not putting down their whips yet!). This movement has a whipping boy too, and it is modernity. But I would be careful about rejecting all that modernity had to offer, especially unifying systems.
