I often look through Virtue Online, even though those articles are often from a Protestant / Evangelical point of view. My attention is often drawn by what the fundamentalists consider as "medieval", "obscurantist" and "popish" – because it is likely to be of interest. Years of living in France have made of me someone who takes an interest in something because it swims against the tide! Virtue Online published – The Emergent Church’s Retreat into Pre-Reformation Darkness. The author not not appear to be targeting Catholicism or Anglo-Catholicism per se, but a phenomenon called the Emergent Church, something of Evangelical origin that appears to be taking a position in relation to fundamentalism and the ambient so-called post-modern culture.
From having read something of the Radical Orthodoxy movement of the Cambridge intellectual John Milbank and others, I stumbled across an American minister by the name of Brian McLaren, and I have even “dipped into” his book Generous Orthodoxy (I lacked the patience to read it cover to cover). Could all this be part of some “convergence” of a theological vision aimed at restoring orthodox and Catholic Christianity in the wake of the implosion of both liberalism and fundamentalism? Some of the themes remind me a little of the ritualism of the Irvingites, founded by a 19th century Congregationalist minister after a "mystical experience"!
This article is obviously written from a conservative Evangelical point of view. McLaren’s stuff seems to be quite “soupy” and the red light flashes when I read of his being invited to talk at TEC events. His ideas, as with those of the Cambridge Radical Orthodox intellectuals, are supposed to address post-modern anti-intellectualism and the culture of the young folk of our time.
But, to what extent is this man influenced by Gnosticism, New Age and other questionable beliefs that are widespread in contemporary society? I find this amazing quote:
"In whatever ways Protestants feel they emerged from Catholicism…they can't despise their roots or reject their past." As we shall see, what McLaren has in mind is a redefinition of Protestantism as the prelude to an unconditional surrender to Roman Catholicism.
McLaren’s background is Protestant and Evangelical, but he seems to imply that the way forward is to define things in the sense of a continuum, and not a rupture as Evangelicals like to define the Reformation? Could there be something there that can be of help to us in defining things?
Now, I have mixed feeling about McLaren and don’t always find it easy to understand where he’s going. There seems to be a strand of thought driving him to rediscover certain aspects of medieval Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but in a way that appears to weaken doctrine and teaching.
Could you good readers please send comments and let me know what you think of that article, making abstraction from the fact it was written by a fundamentalist (so I have the impression) and whether you have come across this so-called Emerging Church?
I have come across it via a parishioner. I'll talk to him tomorrow, have him read your article and find out what he thinks. From what I know, they are a Gnostic cult. Very “do what feels right” – make up your own religion, liturgical, whatever. They are, I believe, connected with the state; gathering info and promoting public social works programs which require them "not to mention Jesus."
I'll have more info tomorrow, God willing.
Wouldn't you have expected the church to have emerged by now?
A funny world: am glad to have 'emerged' out of it myself and into something much greater.
Brian McLaren endorsed Obama. Need I say more?
From the little I know about the emergent church, I understand there is a hunger for mystery, for ritual and so on, but it's cafeteria style. Let's have a little incense and some candles and do our own thing.
Radical Orthodoxy strikes me as something different, though there may be some cross over. The Radical Orthodoxy crowd wants to return to the roots (radix) of the faith yet at the same time find a language that speaks to the postmodern mindset.
But I really don't know a whole lot. I would think if you really want to return to the roots, you become a Catholic.
Deborah
The E.C. movement (movement is perhaps too strong a word – it is more of a loose tendency) has received some backing from the Church of England's Fresh Expressions programme.
It has both hopeful and dangerous aspects.
The weakness is that it is (as has been observed above) highly subjective, largely about "what seems good to me" – an aesthetic, cafeteria approach. Probably unfair to call them gnostic at this point, but there is a grave danger of their ending up there.
The good thing (as Fr Chadwick points out) is that there is an openness to aspects of Catholicism that many protestants would traditionally run a mile from, and who knows where this may lead? It may be frustrating for a Catholic to watch people reinventing the wheel, but provided they get there in the end ….
Thus E.C. has the potential to develop in two very different directions – and may well do both. Some of its adherents will discover the fulness of Catholicism, but others, alas, be lost to sycretistical mysticism and gnostic pseudo-spirituality.
I agree with The Welsh Jacobite. This seems to be a fundamentalist critique of yet another project in the ever mesmerizing field of syncretism.
I've heard of the term "Emerging Church", mostly in some Catholic circles on the far left. My poorly informed opinion is that it is a new, and still "under development" concoction, to establish some basis of Christian unity, but without Peter.
I suppose the question for Catholics is: What can be done to encourage E.C. people and groups to develop in a healthy direction, rather than in the opposite one?
For those interested in examples, the following site (when its working – seems to be down at the moment) gives an idea of the sort of thing that is going on in England under official Anglican auspices:
http://www.feig.org.uk
They describe themselves as "an emerging Anglican community".
Thank you, all, for your comments. The one about "reinventing the wheel" is so apposite. What may seem good in the bits and pieces I have read (I have never been to an “emerging” service, that is if they exist) is found in our Anglican tradition and in the Catholic Church. We don’t need to look for it in communities promoting always the same – - – wait for it – - – cultural Marxist ideology (rethinking, deconstructing, etc.).
I also think the idea of “post-modernism” is very questionable, and what mankind needs is guidance and direction. And, the one to do that is God’s chosen, the Pope.
However, I am intrigued by McLaren’s saying “In whatever ways Protestants feel they emerged from Catholicism…they can’t despise their roots or reject their past”. I’ll go through his Generous Oxthodoxy book and see if he has a coherent theory on the hermeneutics of continuity. That could be interesting.
My two cents worth: McLaren was the honored speaker at the Los Angeles diocesan convention where we elected Mary Glasspool as one of two suffragan bishops. Aside from that election, what most disturbed me at the convention was the Q&A with McLaren where a delegate from Orange County spoke up and said the recitation of the Creed offended and alienated visitors to the church. (I believe this was a priest speaking, but maybe she was a lay congregational leader/delegate) He gave the faint defense of the Creed that it had value as a reminder of what the conversation was about God in the 4th century. That one of the bishops sitting on the dais behind him did not rise to the occasion and defend the ancient practice of the Church was more disturbing to me than anything he said– he actually had useful things to say about relating to the culture. Watching and listening to Brian McLaren, our bishops, and the assembled clergy and lay leadership of my diocese fumble about applauding each other for being prophets in between ballots to elect the first partnered lesbian Anglican bishop was an occasion to see the trajectory of Protestant Anglicanism. Pick and choose whatever you like and call it a church.
To him the Catholic tradition is like a big toy chest that one pulls something nice out of– say the Eucharist or an icon of Christ– to use and next week or next year or whenever put that away and pull out another artifact and see how that works. He calls liturgy "organized mysticism." Perhaps he is right, but it seems that our liturgy is one of many that might be useful to him; I imagine that yoga is as well and that Ramadan is just as good as Lent. Still, his toying with tradition is perhaps more honest than the traditionalism of ECUSA which is becoming aesthetic only.
“In whatever ways Protestants feel they emerged from Catholicism…they can’t despise their roots or reject their past”. Doesn't that remind you of the sisters and others who talk about having moved beyond Christianity?
Whatever his faults, he has these points worth taking: people are hungry for truth and hungry for community and hungry for ritual and hungry for God. I don't think folks would want that in half measures in his megachurch or in a liberal gray haired Episcopal church instead of in the real deal Catholic Church once they have an opportunity to experience it. I hope we will be able to provide it when we get off the ground.
Pingback: The rise and fall of the Emerging Church movement « Khanya
This GenX/Y Anglo-Catholic was once a Non-Denominational Protestant…in that time I was drawn to the intentions of the Emergent Movement…but have become disenchanted by it over time. Even though it's from Reformed authors, check out the book "Why We Are Not Emergent, By Two Guys That Should Be"…written by two young Reformed churchmen…even Catholics will find much of it compelling.
Nothing to add after my convo with my parishioner. Though upon further reflection, I am confident that the Emergent thingy is hyperbolical Gnostic Protestantism. Everyone's a scholar, a liturgist, a priest, a pope; but only so long as you don't shove your scholarship, liturgy, priesthood and popery down someone else’s throat. Everyone’s “special” and has an absolute right to exercise their prerogative – as long as nobody is offended. Their truth is quintessentially subjective. McLaren, the Emergent guru, said, “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God.” Is this John Calvin pretending he’s Pontius Pilate’s or Jonathan Livingston Seagull’s gloss on Footprints in the Sand?
I am not surprised at the popularity of the Emergent what-ever-they-call-it. The logical conclusion of “sola Scriptura,” “sola Fides” or “sola” anything is subjectivist goo; these folks wallow in it. And Catholics need to ready to smack the Emergent devil down when it rears its ugly head.
I am really surprised that Catholics do not appear to know much about this movement. Perhaps it seems worse for me, a resident of Grandvill, MI, the home of Rob Bell, one the Emergent Church's main proponents.
Here is a good bood that explaines everything very well. It is written Protestants though, so not everything they say is correct, but it's a good treatise on the subject. It is Why we're not emergent : by two guys who should be / Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. ISBN 9780802458346. I got it from my local library, but it is available from Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Correcting some mispellings in my last post:
I am really surprised that Catholics do not appear to know much about this movement. Perhaps it seems worse for me, a resident of Grandville, MI, the home of Rob Bell, one the Emergent Church’s main proponents.
Here is a good book that explains everything very well. It is written by Protestants though, so not everything they say is correct, but it’s a good treatise on the subject. It is "Why we’re not emergent : by two guys who should be" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. ISBN 9780802458346. I got it from my local library, but it is available from Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
At this point I question the usefulness of the labels emergent/emerging altogether. There's all sorts of people from all sorts of perspectives who use the labels to describe a wide variety of ideas; sometimes emphasis on the relationships inherent in a Christian worldview, sometimes a wholesale attack on all organized religion, sometimes a set of views more centered on social progress than on Christ, and sometimes a set of views more centered on Christ than institutionalism.
No doubt there are people out there with Gnostic tendencies who embrace the term. But all in all, I'd say a more helpful way to view things is to see the Emerging/Emergent title for what it is: an often inadequate shortcut to lump a bunch of different, often unrelated, tendencies together in one bag.
I think we'd be better served discussing the individual ideas or groups involved than only making generalizations–though of course generalizations are necessary in the discussion as well.
“I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God.”
Love this. Just plain brilliant.