Is the real danger to modernists emergent faith, or is it divergent faith?

Normally, this type of post would be found at The Pastor's Buzz, but I'm afraid I may get into a rant that would do nothing for The Meadow.

In excerpts from a column reprinted in Preaching.com, R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has apparently come to the conclusion that the emergent movement "represents a significant challenge to biblical Christianity. Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind. "

He takes particular aim at Brian McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy": "The problem with 'A Generous Orthodoxy,' as the author must surely recognize, is that this orthodoxy bears virtually no resemblance to orthodoxy as it has been known and affirmed by the church throughout the centuries. Honest Christians know that disagreements over issues of biblical truth are inevitable. But we owe each other at least the honesty of taking a position, arguing for that position from Scripture, and facing the consequences of our theological convictions."

I'm sorry. Are we talking about the same "movement?" I consider myself part of that emergent exploration and I stand on the truths that can be found in the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. Mohler may ask, "Well, what propositional truths do you stand on in defense of these creeds?" To which I would answer, "Why do I need to? Would it help me reach the least, the last and the lost, and to serve them, if I am able to explain through propositional truths where in Scripture it tells us the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father and the Son,' and how it is that this takes place?"

Even if it could be done, I think not.

I'm in the midst of "A Generous Orthodoxy" and, while I certainly don't agree with everything McLaren says, I think Mohler is a bit off-base and (not surprisingly) fairly reactionary. While orthodoxy as defined by modernists such as Mohler may be in question, I find nothing in McLaren's work that suggests he questions the basic tenants of the faith as defined by the early church.

Let me give you some more of Mohler:

"When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this movement simply refuses to answer the questions ... "

I am nearly to the final chapter in the book and I have seen nothing that suggests he minimizes the gospel (in fact, it is quite the opposite), rejects the divinity of Christ (he affirms the incarnation), or denegrates Scripture (unlike some Christians, he extends its salvific purpose beyond fire insurance). Again, I am not quite finished with the text, but thus far I do not recall his touching on the issue of homosexuality, to be certain, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the book.

The fact that Mohler suggests any "movement" can provide the answers to all questions concerning Scripture, or that we should spend our time in endless debates that "promote controversies rather than God's work," says a great deal about his lack of openness. Obviously, he would much rather 'take a position and argue for that position ..."

Quite frankly, Mohler, it is that very position that has moved us even further toward a post-Christian nation, thank you very much.

I stumbled innocently enough into a situation that showed the success of not relying on propositional "arguments" (note that I did not use the word "truths" here) when addressing certain "hard questions" of Scripture. The situation involved two young female journalists discussing the story of Creation.

"I wonder what Frank thinks ..." one was overheard saying.

"What Frank thinks about what?" I asked, walking in their direction.

"Do you believe that Adam and Eve were two real people?" the one asked.

"Well, before I answer that, let me ask you a question," I said. "Does it really matter?"

This time, the other female chimed in, bringing the age-old question of where did Cain get his wife. To her, it did matter.

"Let me ask you: You're a journalist and you cover a meeting. In that story you quote two people. Does that mean those were the only two people who were at the meeting?"

"No," she said.

"Of course not. Those were the only two you deemed important to the story. It would be far more involved and unnecessary to name all of those who were at the meeting when they were not pertinent to the story.

"Now, just so you will know: I believe God's creation of humankind started with two people, Adam and Eve. But here's the thing people get hung up on: While you can find science in Scripture, the Bible is not a book of science. While you can find mathematics in Scripture, the Bible is not a book of mathematics. The Bible is the story of God and his interaction with his people."

"Wow. I've never heard anyone explain it like that ..." one of the women said.

"Me neither," said the other.

I could have tried to lay foundational stones and propositional truths to make that point, but chances are it would have failed. It's like the first newsroom discussion I had with an atheist at The Knoxville Journal. I used propositional truths to try and make my point to him, and it went on for days until it finally hit me: The discussion was failing because it was flawed at its very root. The flaw was that we had no mutual basis for discussion. The atheist did not believe the Bible was Godbreathed; in fact, he did not believe in God.

Mohler shows a lack of understanding concerning the true nature of the emergent movement: It is an affirmation of the ancient faith while rejecting those endless controversies which divide us and dilutes the Gospel.

A generous orthodoxy (as I understand McLaren) is not contrary to the orthodox understanding of the Christian faith, only the way we seek to bring the Gospel to postmoderns. Yes, experiential, participatory, image-driven worship can be part of that equation in telling the story of God's love for his people. But the goal is to never let the medium overshadow the message, only augment its telling.

Furthermore, Mohler fails to recognize that McLaren does he speak for the entire emergent movement. How faith communities adopt aspects of emergent faith is entirely a local community and individualistic matter. Some will cling to the ancient creeds verbatum, while others will present new voices as they affirm the same tenants of faith as those ancient writers.

I am not a deconstructionist; in fact, quite the contrary. But columns such as Mohler's lead me to understand deconstructionists a little better -- and for that, I suppose I should thank him.

Grace and peace ...