The Journey Magazine (a publication of Emmaus Bible College) ran an article in its Spring 2007 edition by Dr. Larry Dixon called "The Challenge of the Emergent Church." As I began reading the article, I had no doubt the direction it would take. The clip art had a wet floor sign showing a man falling down with the caption "Danger: Another Gospel?" The pages following had a background of caution tape behind the print. The message was clear: you were about to consider ideas that were dangerous and could hurt you like a wet, soapy floor or a falling brick. The clip are said, "Read on, dear reader, but only with your safety helmet!"
OK, I am sure Dr. Dixon didn't pick the clip art. In fact, Dixon didn't write the article: it was an edited transcript of a lecture given by Dixon at the 2006 Iron Sharpens Iron conference held at Emmaus Bible College. So, I thought, ignore the sensational visuals, and let's see if what this guy has to say.
Sorry to say, while there were some good things in Dr. Dixon's article, I was left with a strong disappointment in his representation of the emerging church movement. Here is the crux of my disappointment:Dr. Dixon rightfully says that "proponents like to speak of the emerging 'conversation' to emphasize its developing nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction" (page 10-11). He then goes on to almost exclusively associate the leadership of the Emergent / emerging movement with Brian McLaren and to summarize the entire movement's basic beliefs into four short paragraphs. Can you say, "Oversimplification?"
There is a reason it is called the "emerging" church movement -- it is in formation and is being influenced by many voices. There is commonality in the conversation, but there is also diversity, and even strong disagreement. In fact, I think it is essential to an intelligent examination to make a distinction between the Emergent church (associated with the Emergent Village) and the emerging church movement. They are both parts of the conversation, but they are definitely not all saying the same thing. Dr. Dixon doesn't even hint that any such diversity exists. This oversimplification misrepresents the complexity of the many voices that are part of the emerging conversation.
Dr. Dixon's oversimplification seems to be aided by his over-reliance on limited and dated sources. Almost every quote in the first part of his article (and I assume in his previous lecture) comes from an article out of 2004 issue of Christianity Today. First of all, there is always a danger in making a second hand source your primary source. This problem is compounded by the fact that the article was already 2 years old at the time of the Iron Sharpens Iron conference where Dr. Dixon gave his original lecture. I am not criticizing the original article. I am simply saying there needed to be much more thorough research into the thoughts, trends, arguments, developments, failures and successes of the emerging church. Anyone who speaks for (and then against) a movement must do their homework to understand that movement if there is to be any kind of intelligent, profitable interchange of ideas. I really think he would have been on more solid ground to entitle his address as, "The dangers and lessons of Brian McLaren."
Maybe this is closer to the heart of it. It is easy to draw simplistic generalizations. It is much harder to seek to understand. It doesn't threaten me in any way to assume the high ground before I assay the battle. It is much more dangerous to come humbly, to walk unarmed into the fracas, truly seeking to understand and possibly be forced into some hard change as a result of the encounter. I know this from personal experience -- I spent years throwing stones from a distance, defining myself (and my group) by what we were not instead of by what we were. When I let that guard down and actually engaged the ideas instead of condemning them, I was changed with some painfully wonderful results. I cannot say whether Dr. Dixon's research took him to the original thoughts of emergent thinkers beyond Brian McLaren, but if it did, it sadly doesn't show. The article surely could have benefited from a representation of a wider reading of those actually associated with the emerging church instead of just referencing an editorial, summary, second-hand description of the movement.
I need to mention that the second part of his article seems to come almost completely from D. A. Carson's critique of the Emergent Church. He picked a good source there, but fails to reference that Carson, while critical of the "Emergent Church," is currently working closely with many who lead churches that are part of the "emerging" church culture, becoming another voice in the emerging conversation.There are other, more minor points, with which I could take exception in the article, but this one is huge. Oversimplification is the same as misrepresentation. I can't help but think that many of the readers of Journey will come away with the expectation that everyone associated with the emerging church will subscribe to some kind of dangerous false gospel that might cause them to slip or will hit them in the head like brick. This just isn't the case. And worse, it cuts off honest dialogue by alienating those who are frustrated by this oversimplification and by strengthening the walls of those who consider the emerging conversation as "something out there."
It is easy to tear down an oversimplified representation of a complex series of thoughts. It is much more difficult to actually enter into the conversation. That requires actually listening to what the divergent voices are saying with both openness and a critical ear. It is much easier to just say we are listening while our hearts are guarded and our thoughts and practices go unchallenged.God is clearly doing something in this movement at this time. He is moving hearts, changing culture, and transforming lives. Some of the movement has been taken off course, no doubt, but we cannot simply stand back self-protectively with our hard hats firmly in place glad to watch them make a wreck of themselves. We need to be critical, but we also need to be vulnerable, honest, inquisitive, challenging and challenged, humble and bold. Authenticity isn't just a buzz word -- it is a way of approaching life, culture, God, and ourselves that requires nothing less than an absolute abandonment of our personal agendas and cultural comfort zones.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
