Last week (I think), Scot McKnight put together a series of posts on the Emerging Church and orthodoxy. I found this series particularly interesting, as I have being doing a little research over the past couple of months on this. For now, let me provide the links as I will address this in the near future with particular attention given to theology, orthodoxy, and pluralism.
Here are Scot McKnight’s posts:
Emerging Orthodoxy 1 (creeds and examples)
Emerging Orthodoxy 2 (Scriptural defense/examples of creeds)
Emerging Orthodoxy 3 (creeds and the emerging church)
Emerging Orthodoxy 4 (creeds and the local church)
Oh, and here is McKnight’s commentary on orthodoxy and the emerging church:
So, where does that leave the emerging movement and orthodoxy? I’ll speak my mind. I think some in the first group are not so convinced creedal orthodoxy (or any other kind) is all that important. Not all who have been touched by the postmodern shift are against creeds, but some have big issues — some suggest they are historic documents we respect but are not tied to. And there are some who simply no longer believe such things.
The praxis impulse, on the other hand, is I suspect more committed to the orthodox creeds, even evangelical ones, than not. The postevangelical impulse, I suspect, opens up two points of view: some are still evangelical in theology and find great freshness in the shorter more historic creedal statements, while others are more joined at the hip with the pomo impulse and want to question the place of orthodox creeds. Some, I suspect, are willing to reduce the Christian faith to “following Jesus” in behavior — and that is all that matters.
I’m not sure about the political impulse, but I think this impulse is probably in tune with pomo and postevangelical impuse [sic], along with a commitment to justice that is so central that orthodox creeds aren’t part of the equation.
Now here’s my claim: the emerging conversation is for all of these sorts (in fact it already comprises all these sorts). But, what that means is that some think orthodoxy really matters (I do) while others think it doesn’t. The conversation is open to both kinds. The conversation is no more only for those who have jettisoned the path of orthodoxy than it is only for those who adhere to orthodoxy. This makes emergent a special movement; there aren’t many like this. I don’t agree with those who are universalists, but I think that question is being asked today and I want to participate in that conversation.
I’ve been trying to relate the Emerging Church movement to Orthodoxy since I first hear the term “Emerging Church” about a year ago. So I was interested in what you had to say, but I think McKnight’s understanding of “orthodoxy” is very different from mine.
Steve,
I agree. His definition is different from mine as well. At the time of this post, I was planning on addressing the heterodoxy of some of the Emerging Church leaders, especially Spencer Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity but never got around to it. Ergo, the post doesn’t really fit nor does it really explain why I chose to post it at the time I did.
Thanks for the comment. Oh, and btw, do you know any other Steve Hayes? There is another guy who blogs at Triablogue who has the same name but I think he spells his last name without the “e.” Just curious.