Power of Suggestion

[There are a lot of people who think I'm uncharitable to the Emergent Movement in many ways.  I don't mind the sentiment, and I'm happy to debate it with you.]

The outspoken members of the Emergent movement – those who are interested in and effective at getting the word around – talk endlessly about the monolithic “emerging generation” and it’s concerns. They talk about what youth and young adults will and won’t be attracted to, or interested in. They talk about what the church will have to do to survive, because if it continues as it is, it will be pushed to the fringes as modernism crumbles. They have centered their positions, their existence, around one thing: they know where culture is going. They know the future.

They won’t tell you this. They’ll point to surveys, books, social and religious trends, and most often they’ll turn to anecdotes. They’ll look at what is starting to happen in small pockets around the country, and tell you that this is what is going to happen. They’ll weave things together and make arguments that sound convincing, but all the while you know something’s wrong. Then it might hit you that they’re predicting the future.

Now, before I move on, I have to say that they might be right. All of their predictions about society and culture, the future of the church, and particularly the futures of evangelicalism and other conservative theological movements might come true. I’m just a little skeptical.

I don’t know what’s behind the speculation. I don’t know if it’s true belief, reasonable expectation, or just hope. I’m sure there’s a mixture of all three, and some I haven’t thought of. But what’s happening in the movement, just as in much of society, is that the speculation is taking the place of reality.

What just a few years ago was simply an idea of what might be the future of our culture is now said to be the reality of our culture. So many in the Emergent movement began adjusting their practice and theology to entice the members of this new society. Now, in an incredibly short span of time, the ideas and positions of just a few years ago are deeply entrenched ideologies.

Consider this post at Pomomusings.com (154 comments and counting) titled “The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already.”I’m not going to get into the theology of this post, because…wow. I think the attitude with which the post was written is more telling:

[I know many will not agree with this post. I know many will say I'm on the slippery slope, have rejected Scripture, thus rejected Christ, and I am teaching things against the Gospel. Obviously, nothing I say will convince you otherwise, and I'm not interested in having 'debates' on this issue. I have many close friends, and family members, who will disagree with this post - and that's okay. Many of us have come to a place of understanding on this issue - we just disagree. But this is still something I feel like I need to say.]

There are a lot of things here that increase my skepticism of Emergent thought (which was pretty well off the charts to begin with), but I’ll only mention three. First, one of the EM’s main critics of evangelicalism is that it isn’t open to change. One of Doug Pagitt’s big knocks on Mark Driscoll in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches was that he hadn’t change his theology over the 10 years they’d known each other. Being willing to hear out the other side and be open to the possibility that they’re right is a big point of pride. But the line I highlighted implies that the writer is correct, and doesn’t need to be convinced. It says that nothing said will convince him either.

This opening disclaimer also belies the oft-repeated idea that Emergent theology “allows room for doubt”, and uncertainty. This doesn’t sound like it. It sounds as if this issue is so airtight that nothing has enough authority to validly contradict it. Not even the Bible. There’s no room for doubt there. These two things make the movement look to be built like a penny, a thin layer of copper to fool you, but nickel underneath.

All sizzle, no steak

Finally, the author writes:

If it is truly the Bible that is causing some to hold these discriminatory beliefs, then perhaps we need to set the Bible aside for awhile. Perhaps we need to not construct a belief system about LGBT folk built on the foundation of a couple verses in scripture. Perhaps that isn’t healthy, fair, just or Christian…

I’d suggest perhaps you stick your Bible back up on the shelf for awhile. Perhaps it should collect a little bit of dust. And maybe, just maybe, you need to go out and grab coffee with someone who’s gay. Maybe you need to hear their story, learn about what they’ve been through, how they’ve experienced Christians and the church.

This is perhaps the crux of his argument. I’ll leave aside the implicationt that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin thinks gays and lesbians are somehow subhuman and should be left to wallow in a pit of limited civil rights and outright exclusion, and focus on this: this is the same thing that the church did for baby boomers and gen-x.

Let’s follow…They looked at what was happening in culture, and tried to predict what was going to happen next. Then from that they decided which groups and demographics were the most important. Now they’re doing everything they have to to get them to like the church.

For Prosperity preachers it’s the middle class, those who still have some upward mobility, and all they want is to feel good about life and make more money.  For “relevant” churches the stunning worship grabs those who want some excitement, and once they get them in, they just try not to scare them away.

For the Emergent it’s social and political liberals, and disgruntled evangelicals. People who’ve had bad experiences with the conservative church, and have decided to run headlong in the other direction.

Their method for telling them what they want to hear is the same as it is for the others: just ignore the parts of the Bible that might bother them. Prosperity preachers don’t point out that Jesus was poor and homeless (I actually had one preaching student try to tell me he was wealthy…).  Relevant preachers don’t talk about anything deep…or anything that touches on the accepted sins (greed, gluttony, pride, etc.).

What’s surprising is the brazen attitude of this post, one I’ve seen elsewhere. They will just come out and say that if the Bible doesn’t agree with them, to Hell with it. They’re right and you should stick on a shelf until you’re right, too.

This isn’t preaching “Jesus’ compassion and love, Jesus’ radical inclusivity,” it’s telling people what they want to hear so they’ll come to your church. And in the end, there’s no doctrine, no belief, and (seemingly, though I can’t say for sure) no real love for Jesus behind it. All sizzle, no steak.