A Different Perspective

The emerging church needs critique from the broader body of Christ. And we’ve certainly been getting it over the past few months! For those of you who have taken the time to give thoughtful critiques, I want to say thank you. And I’d also like to take a stab at helping you critique the emerging church better.

First and foremost, you need to understand that we do not define the emerging church based on theology. This may seem odd, but we who will admit to being part of the emerging church do not feel the need to shy away from the movement when one person makes a theological statement we completely disagree with. Some critics have called us evasive because of this, but I believe the emerging church is not evasive as much as it is held together by things other than theology.

The most common thread is a belief that the current structure of church is broken. For some, that means making changes to the current church structure. For others, like myself, the desire to see new structures for the local church come forth drives us into action and participation in the emerging church movement.

So when you have issues with theological statements which someone in the emerging church has made, do not direct your criticism at the entire emerging church. It really would be like holding all evangelicals accountable for everything Pat Robertson said! Do you really want us to judge you by the same standard many of you are judging us by?

Address the source directly in your criticism, and that person and/or proponents will almost certainly be happy to respond thoughtfully. But when you start attacking everyone who identifies with the emerging church based on what someone in the emerging church has said, you will often hear, “I don’t believe that.” That’s not evasive, it’s honest.

In my opinion, critics of the emerging church should not focus only on the error they see in the emerging church, they also need to take seriously our criticisms of the established church. Without understanding our reasons for rejecting the establishment, a critic can’t possibly come to a quality understanding of practices within the emerging church. Not having a weekly sermon, for example, does not necessarily mean the emerging church does not value teaching.

We don’t expect you to approve of everything we’re doing, but we do expect at least a small benefit of the doubt that our motives are pure. You may think us extremely misguided, but your criticism will fall on deaf ears if you attack our character and motivations without making any effort to know who we are and what we are about. I think of a recent debate about profanity and how it is prolific in the emerging church. Many critics would just point to the use of cuss words and say, “You see, they just care about doing whatever they want.” While you may strongly oppose the practice, could you at least be open to the possibility that someone genuinely seeking God could think saying the other word for crap is equal to saying crap? That there’s no sin there?

What I’m saying is that rather than attacking character, talk about the issue itself. Few critics on the profanity issue bothered to develop any kind of coherent dialogue over the issue. By far, the preference was to just say, “Look, they cuss, they are very, very bad people and we shouldn’t trust anything that comes from them.” This sort of criticism does nothing but divide Christians.

Critics, please take the time to listen to what we say in response. If you aren’t willing to hear our side, then don’t address us in your criticisms. I understand some of you feel we are too far gone, and you are just trying to warn the faithful not to get mixed up with us. You must, of course, do what you feel is right. But if you are actually trying to discuss issues with us, hopefully because we are a part of the body of Christ with you and you care about us, then please listen to what we have to say back to you. If you prepare a thoughtful criticism or start a discussion on an issue, many of us will be thrilled to take the time to give you a thoughtful response back.

One last thing, and this is extremely important. Please do not throw around the word postmodern and philosophical terms associated with it, and try to make us look bad just because you call us “relativists.” Most criticisms I’ve read where the emerging church is attacked as relativist show the author clearly has very little understanding of philosophy. When you misuse terms and use very bad philosophical arguments to try to prove us wrong, you make yourselves look silly. No one wants to respond to silly accusations, and whatever quality criticisms you may have had will get ignored because it appears you have no idea what you’re talking about. While people who agree with you may be persuaded that we’re bad merely because you say we’re postmodern, or you say we’re relativists, few of us are dissuaded by your labeling. We may try to explain why we are or are not the label you’ve placed on us, but probably we’ll just realize you don’t understand our beliefs well enough to label us in the first place, and you obviously don’t want to take the time to find out what we really think.

Now, all that being said, some criticism has already treated us fairly and done some or all of the above. Thank you! To the others, please consider my advice, as I really do believe we need more quality criticism of the emerging church. Many of you have great insight we need to hear, but its buried under your disdain for us. If you care for us as brothers and sisters and Christ, please take the time to thoughtfully critique us in a way that we can respond back. Maybe we’ll both be changed in the process, or maybe you’ll point out things that will open eyes to some in the emerging church and cause substantive change. It could happen.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 13th, 2006 at 9:44 pm and is filed under Emerging Church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.