Loading ...Emergent Theology or Restoration Theology
Anyone who is conversant with emergent theology will soon discover some similarities with restoration theology. The ideas of restoring Christianity are prevalent within emergent pages. There are some who will advocate that emergent theology is the true expression of restoration thought. Some see this new trend as the biblical fulfillment of the restoration movement. Of course, there are those who reject emergent ideas about restoration of the church as a post-modern error. It seems that there are some similarities between the two thoughts. Both are built on the assumption of “Primitivism”. This is the idea of if you restoration early Christianity than you will have the same results of early Christianity. There will be the same level of dedication and growth. But before I buy into the emergent thought being the true expression of my continued goal of restoration, I believe there needs to be serious discussion on whether emergent thought is truly restoration thought. It is my call for those in the church who are experts in Stone-Campbell theology to test this movement with the voices of the past. I would call on Bobby Valentine or Gary Halloway to respresent one voice and call on Earl Edwards or Ancil Jenkins to represent another voice. Before we reject or accept this movement, we must have some of the best in the church discussing the restoration thought that is presented. I want to hear from the Historical Theologians on this issue.
Also, yesterday I discovered that I was considered in a positive light for my work on this issue in the Gospel Advocate. Here is the link to the discussion. The link is in the comment section.
Related posts:
- The Role of Religious Journals in the Restoration Movement
- Teaching Restoration History
- Read "Disciples and Theology"
- Theology at the Fringes
- A Quick Review of Phil Sanders Article “The Emerging Church Movement.”
About The Author
Here is the link: http://oneinjesus.info/2008/11/21/the-christian-standard-and-the-gospel-advocate-on-the-emerging-church-movement/
That is very kind of you Matthew. We clearly need to have serious thinking about what restoration theology is and how it has been expressed. Something can be a valid expression of “restorationism” and yet not be obsessed with “forms” as has been in the Churches of Christ. Stone’s version of “restoration” and Campbell’s version were not identical and in fact were quite different on significant points.
Dialog is definitely needed in these times. Loving and brotherly dialog …
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby, a lot of people do not know that Campbell and Stone disagreed about anything. Thank you for the comment.
I suppose one of the major differences that I have noticed so far between Emergent Theology/Movement (ETM) and the Stone-Campbell Restoration theology/movement (SCRTM) would be the difference in hermenuetics. Though both movements seek to the ‘primitive’ expressions of early Christianity, the ETM seem more focused on the FUNCTION while the SCRTM has often been more focused on FORM.
I know that not all forms of NT can be abandoned if we are to remain faithful but for the most part I believe the CoC wing of the SCRTM has been overobsessed with restoring form (assuming it will produce function which has not always followed in every local church as hoped for), to the point that it has crippled us in many ways at the local church level. My observation comes from ministering with small congregations in the north (as well as growing up in one) who are locked into one form, believing that much about that form is mandated by scripture (when it is not) and have been indoctrinated to read the NT as a legal constitution containing that form rather than recognizing that the forms of the local churches in the NT were in flux (according to thier needs).
One other suggestion for such a conversation is to keep it on the local church lever. So much dicussion regarding practical theology for the church is on a superficial level rather the local church level where it really matters.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Matthew,
A couple of years ago, I did a handful of posts on the emergent church, how it’s defined and how it might interface with the American Restoration Movement. Here are three of the better ones:
http://frankbellizzi.blogspot.com/2006/07/emergent-church-and-blogs-1.html
http://frankbellizzi.blogspot.com/2006/08/emergent-church-and-blogs-2.html
http://frankbellizzi.blogspot.com/2007/02/still-wondering-about-emergent.html
If you speak with Everett Ferguson who would probably be the authority on early church history in the churches of Christ, he will tell you about his book “A biblical ecclesiology for today”. The entire pre-supposed idea is if there was a form such as day that they met, who did what and the ways it was done can be determined either through biblical record or historical record that must be replicated to enth degree to please God. Many people like Everett use secular history such as the writings of early church leaders to establish 1st century form and practice as well. If you go to newtestamentchurchtoday.org you can read his articles. In one instance he goes so far as to try and determine if people sang in groups or if solos were sung using early secular records. The difference between the restoration movement associated with churches of Christ and emerging churches which are phenomena not a movement is this they seek to become more like the early Christians in Spirit and that drives the forms such as days, ways, roles, government. If they can’t picture Jesus dying for it, then it won’t be established as doctrine, practice or forms. Here is the problem if we use the early records of Christians to help establish something we see in scripture then we have to be consistent. We always use Clement of Alexandria to argue against instrumental music, but we omit the parts where they painted crosses of there foreheads or any other weird stuff like that. Anyway EC theology seeks to go deeper, here is an example. If the Corinthians were commanded to lay by and store on the first day of the week so that Paul could pick it up on his way back through, to the EC that does not really mean that God is forever commanding the local churches to take a contribution on Sunday. The EC would rather look at what the early Christians gave their money to and why they gave out of their poverty and beyond what they were able. These questions would help shape the spirit of giving and so shape the function and format that it would be carried out. At some EM churches there is no plate passed or announcement for the collection or pray before hand but only boxes to drop the gifts in at the doors. The traditional church of Christ hermeneutic assumes that since it says the first day of the week it is referring to Sunday in the eventual English Calendar forever and that since Paul instructed the Corinthians to this until he returned that the funds would be ready when he got there that all churches now and forever must take up there local collection on Sunday with a pray and announcement. I am not arguing one way or another but trying to highlight the differences.
Thank you Frank for the posts and the links.
This has been on my mind for quite some time. Read Dan Kimball’s book Emerging Church and you will find a lot of things that we are very familiar with. Here are some quotes from Kimball that I think inform this conversation from the Emerging Church side of things.
“In today’s world, emerging generations have no anchor or truth to hold onto. So as they hear and experience Jesus as the truth and the anchor for the very first time, the hope for the future is incredibly optimistic. As the emerging church returns to a rawer and more vintage form of Christianity, we may see explosive growth much like the early church did…” (p.28-29)
Kimball goes on to talk about the move from seeker-sensitive worship to more ancient forms of worship and the pursuit of a spiritual experience with God by younger and even older generations. He has found that his happens best with less flash, rock bands, etc and more vintage/early church forms of worship. Kimball takes time to describe worship in the New Testament and early church and makes the statement “Vintage worship is going back to the original and keeping that in mind.” (p.114). He goes on to say on page 149, “A major criticism of the church today is that it is a modern, Americanized, organized religion that has lost its ancient roots and sense of mystery.”
“Worship in the emerging church is less about looking out for what is on the cutting edge and more about moving back into our spiritual center with Jesus as our sole focus. How ironic that returning to a raw and ancient form of worship is now seen as new and even cutting edge. We are simply going back to a vintage form of worship which has been around for as long as the church has been in existence.” (p.169).
There are many other relevant quotes from his book but the point is that vintage is good. Getting back to the basics and critically evaluating all the flash in the pan, seeker-sensitive, stuff is going to the wayside and people are seeking out a scaled down, back to the basics approach that is all about connective with God and little about putting on a show or performance.
In my opinion, we have a lot to offer in this arena because we have stuck to these basics for a long, long time. It is also funny that many churches of Christ are now trying to be more flashy and add a bunch of things for seekers while the seekers have now moved beyond much of that and actually want the more traditional forms of worship.
Thank you for the quotes.
It should be noted that “emergent” does not mean the same by any means to those in the movement. Some are very far removed from what has been discussed thus far–they would be a contrast rather than similar to restoration principles.
In particular, they are more concerned with social issues than spiritual steadfastness.
Matthew, you’re one of the few young preachers I know of who can move with ease with very few biases and with no lack of love for those you’re among.
So you’re one of the few to whom I feel comfortable confessing that I believe that both the Restoration Movement and the Emergent Conversation have missed the target. By concentrating so much on forms and structures of doing church – rather than on being Christ in the world and doing His work – I think large segments of both are trying to emulate an organization (a God-ordained one, to be sure) as a priority over – or a means toward – imitating Jesus, His Son.
It’s like trying to become a heavy-hitter like Babe Ruth by doing everything that the early 20th Century Red Sox or Yankees did. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it; it just won’t necessarily help you hit the high-and-outsiders out of the park.
I wouldn’t insult the restoration movement with the emergent “thing” whatever it has ended up to be. Are we talking McLaren and Co? In a recent interview McLaren said the Cross is a distraction to the kingdom that Jesus came to bring. This with their new emergent bible interpretation; it has gone so far overboard. Its nothing more than a political movement for disgruntled evangelicals; and McLaren is cashing in.
This is a pretty good summary of the emergent movement (at least from what we can gather from their leaders like McLaren)
1. Living like Jesus is more important than believing in him
2. People are basically good and free from original sin
3. Objection to penal substitution
4. Unite Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God
5. Inclusivism: extends salvation to include those who have not believed in Christ
6. Focus on this life solely rather than the afterlife (and hell)
Everyone needs to listen to this a by Eric Ludy on the emergent movement:
http://www.purelifeministries.org/index.cfm?pageid=168
I actually think what may be coming to that “conversation” is a pretty public break-up of the leaders. Kimball at least seems a tad more based in scripture than the likes of McLaren who want very little to do with it.
What the CoC needs is biblical preaching from biblical men who live the Bible daily; period. If only the CoC raises up such men like John Piper! Stop all this other nonsense.
Want to get back to basics? Learn, Live, and Preach the Word of God. It still works! (unlike these new inventions in failure)
Hi!…
cheap tamiflu or …tamiflu side effects…
H1!…
order tamiflu or …order relenza…
Hello Matthew-
When I wrote the book The Graham Formula, which came out in 2005, most books on “decisional regeneration” blamed Charles Finney for the altar call mentality that has produced so many Christianettes. It turns out the seeds of “decisional regeneration” was the Enlightenment movements of Humanism and Materialism. If you look at the early writings of the Restoration Movement from the 19th century, you will see “decisional regeneration” (expressed in water baptism) was merely the abandonment of the supernatural born again experience. As man assumed responsibility for his fate, he dropped the spiritual explanation of regeneration and said salvation can be obtained through a non-supernatural “faith”. In fact, restoration movement religions teach the Holy Spirit only works through a person reading the Bible. This is consistent with Enlightenment philosophy that says a spiritual God can not communicate with a physical man. August Compte (the father of humanism) would be proud. Thank you for your website as it has provided many links for me to pursue in uncovering the mystery of how “decisional regeneration” became the default doctrine for evangelical salvation.
God bless you. Patrick