Emerging Church/Church Tradition
Those who know me know that historical rootedness, The Christian Tradition, and liturgy are important to my understanding and practice of the Faith. For this reason, Paula sent me a link to a post about the Emerging Church and the Christian Tradition by the Reverend Dr. Leander Harding who teaches Pastoral Theology and is the Head of Chapel at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, one of the leading seminaries of Anglican orthodoxy. Below is an excerpt from this post, and below that is the link to the post itself. Read it, and tell me what you think.
*******
It seems to me that God is doing in the Emergent Church movement something that He does over and over. When His gift is rejected by the people He has prepared to receive it, He seeks out a new people. So it is that sons and daughters of Anabaptists and Pentecostals are being drawn to the Great Tradition. It is a moment for repentance for those of us in the historic churches which have stewarded the Great Tradition but have lost touch with the life which generates the tradition and which carries it forward. It is also a moment of testing for that which is emerging. Will they marginalize doctrine and the labor of seeking a consensus in faith and order? Will they succumb to the motto that deeds unite and doctrine divides and then find themselves in the midst of church dividing controversy with no deep doctrinal consensus to guide?
*******
Wrote the following comment on July 11th, 2009 at 6:31 pm #
Harding’s series on postmodernism and the Church looks fascinating and I hope to get a chance to read it. However, his reflections on the Emergent Church leave me wanting. The post is too vague to allow me to really make any assessment of what he truly views the Emergent Church is. Not familiar with Harding’s views nor with the breadth of ideology in the movement tagged as the Emerging Church, I am hesitant to make assumptions and am wary of vague references to historical rejections of the gifts of the Spirit, to the marginalization of doctrine, and to the luring of trivial and faddish relevancy. To what specific events is Harding alluding? I am all for the renewal of liturgical and even sacramental orientation of the church, but it seems that too often, that which is viewed as a resurgence of traditionalism is itself a veiled move in opposition of peace and justice. Are relevancy and “worldly” politics necessarily exclusive of peace and justice when without being relevant we cannot be a peaceful influence, and when the world’s politics at times seems strides ahead of the church in terms of achieving justice? A truly sacramental approach will embrace and work through relevancy and politics while not confusing traditionalism with moralistic justification of old-fashionedness. I would need some clarification of Harding’s broader understanding of the place of the church in contemporary culture before I could really assess his meaning in this post.
Wrote the following comment on July 12th, 2009 at 1:13 am #
Scott – I think the problem that Harding, or anyone, whether within the movement or on the outside, has with clearly defining or identifying the Emerging movement is that it is, as he says, “a term that characterizes a wide spectrum of Christians and churches.” However, he did point to the following characteristics:
-interest in ancient practices of prayer and spiritual discipline
-a turn toward the writings of the earliest Christian centuries of the Patristic period
-an interest by formerly free church types in sacramental theology and in the theology of the church
In agreement with your critique, I am not sure what he means be squandering the gift of the Spirit. I am wondering if it might be more fruitful to see the various renewal movements of the 20th century that emerged and faded, not as failures, but rather as minor movements in a larger orchestration of renewal that is yet to come.
Anyways, what I liked about what Harding said was the idea that the historic churches (i.e. us Anglicans) are stewards of the Great Tradition. Of course, he put this in terms of the need for historic churches to repent of losing touch with the life that generates the Tradition, even as he offered a warning that the Emerging movement might succumb to faddishness and worldly politics. On the other hand, I am a little uncomfortable already calling this movement a “new wind of the Spirit.” First, to be honest, this is not my language, and second, I am a bit cautious when it comes to assessing what is and is not a movement of God. I realize, however, that this could be a fault on my part.
Finally, I think the caution against worldly politics is legit, as the Church cannot let its agenda be established by what emerges in the world, even when what emerges accords with justice and peace. I know my saying this might raise an eyebrow, and I am not sure if I can quite explain it, as I am responding intuitively. But my sense is that even though the world is comprised of creatures who are made in God’s image, and who therefore have a longing to pursue justice, in the end, the methods and means used will deny God in someway shape or form.
Wrote the following comment on July 12th, 2009 at 10:54 pm #
Hey Tony!
I’ve been formulating an answer, and the lack of an elongated tome from my fingers shouldn’t be misconstrued as a lack of interest.
On the contrary!
May I suggest you read “Calvin, Conversions, and Catholicity,” by Jordan J. Ballor, published online Jul 10, 2009?
It’s available online (of course!) at –
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/calvin-conversions-and-catholicity
I think this article wholly germane to your question, and in some regard, quite above what I perceive to be the “fray” that is, in my opinion, embroiled in the author’s post ( the one to which you refer by Reverend Dr. Leander Harding, that is). And, I have read the entire post, naturally, which is why I describe the “fray” in his article.
I would be interested in reading your response/thoughts after reading “Calvin, Conversions, and Catholicity.”
(And, I’m still working on my thoughts in response, of course.)
Wrote the following comment on July 13th, 2009 at 2:43 am #
I think it’s fine to look at the early writings. But the Church over its history has been too willing to be submissive to the state (from feudal pacts between monarch and clergy to support of slavery to an Americhristianity) and be antipathetic to science (from the geocentric univerrse to “intelligent design). So i suppose it depends on what being read…
Wrote the following comment on July 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm #
On some level, I find talk about the “emerging church,” (from what is it emerging?) to be disingenuous.
If it is emerging, it is coming out of something, and the only thing I can see the Anglican Church “coming out” of is their homosexual closets.
“Anglican orthodoxy”?
How about instead, Anglican unorthodoxy? And try this on for size: SIN.
The recent decision in Texas by the Episcopal Church to reaffirm homosexuality among their clerics is a slap in the face of orthodoxy! (And that, as you well know, is merely one very minor symptom of a significantly sicker organism.)
The author’s statement, “When His gift is rejected by the people He has prepared to receive it, He seeks out a new people. So it is that sons and daughters of Anabaptists and Pentecostals are being drawn to the Great Tradition,” could be interpreted to be a cleansing… but how long will it take?
When he writes, “It is a moment for repentance for those of us in the historic churches which have stewarded the Great Tradition but have lost touch with the life which generates the tradition and which carries it forward,” I think that perhaps his views are waylaid, and concerns unfounded.
The “new people” about whom he writes will, hopefully, cleanse it before it disintegrates from within.
This paragraph from the article “Calvin, Conversions, and Catholicity,” sums it up quite well:
“As Betancourt says, “converts appeal to the Catholic Church’s antiquity,” reasoning that “since the Protestant tradition is only as old as the sixteenth-century Reformation, then it cannot be the true expression of the early apostolic faith and tradition.” The strategy of Betancourt and Geisler to answer this reason is to contend that “truth is not determined by age. To say so is to commit the fallacy of ‘chronological snobbery.’””
If it’s orthodoxy you want, don’t kid yourself.
Become Catholic.
Wrote the following comment on July 20th, 2009 at 2:15 am #
Kevin – I am not sure if I am following your response, but just the same, I want to point out that the Emerging movement is something that goes beyond the boundaries of Anglicanism, and in some measure tries to be transdenominational. As the article stated, it is a “disparate” movement, and so nailing down what it is specifically is challenging. However, I will point out, again drawing from the article, that it is an attempt to move beyond “trendy consumerist relevance,” which many of have come to see as the unfortunate byproduct of Evangelicalism’s attempt to do church without traditional garb, and to thereby be culturally engaging on some level. Shooting from the hip, I would say that the Emerging movement is populated by children of Boomer Evangelicals, who have a genuine faith in Christ, but who, generally speaking, became tired of their parents historically myopic, bibliocentric yet culturally determined expression of faith.
In commenting on a quote from Leander, you mentioned that he could be understood as talking about a cleansing. Are you talking about the challenges of the Episcopal Church, and the larger Anglican Communion? If so, I don’t think Emerging types are particularly interested in renewing denominations, so much as they are in moving beyond them, as they try to recover tradition, and the practices of the Ancient Church. The problem with this, however, which I think Dr. Leander points to, is that this recovery is rather ill conceived, and from what I have read, and seen, has been a kind of buffet approach to liturgy and tradition. So, though I applaud the desire of Emergents to move beyond divisions, and their desire to recover the tradition of the Church, it seems to me that it will ironically end up repeating the errors they are reacting against.
Regarding the article you pointed me to, and your closing comment, I certainly agree that to assume that because something is older it is closer to the truth, is to commit “chronological snobbery.” However, I also think that there is something to Apostolic Succession regarding the communication of truth, and this is something that requires historical connectedness, which means that what is older does matter at least a much as what is present. Related to this, I liked the fact that the author, Jordan Ballor, pointed out that the response of the Reformers regarding the critiques of novelty, was to assert that they were merely trying to recover the ancient form of the Faith, and that they are thereby upholding the Catholic faith. In fact, in their counter critique of the Catholicism of their day, they said that what they were reacting against was unbiblical novelty on the part of the Catholic leadership.
Finally, regarding the nature of the Church that all of the above implies, I will say that the tensions of its existence are intimately connected to the tensions that exist in the Church’s confession of Jesus Christ as fully human and fully divine. It is a mystery that invites reflection, and provides understanding, even as it ultimately remains beyond comprehension, and it is a mystery that requires an entering into before any kind of understanding can come.