« I need your support!!! | Main | Is the Emerging Church Movement the fastest growing group in Christianity? »
July 14, 2006
Guest Blogger: Dr. Ray Anderson on his new book, "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches"
As I stated a few blogs back, one of my heroes has been a seminary professor mine, Dr. Ray Anderson. He, more than almost anyone has had the most theological impact on my life, and he has given me a passion for many of the thinkers and theologians that have truly transformed my life such as Barth and Bonhoeffer. This August he has a new book coming out in which I was fortunate enough to read one of the manuscripts.
The book is titled An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches and it will be a highly sought after read. This is the book that I have been waiting for and I think it is the book many of you have been waiting for. Ray Anderson is the voice not only needed in "emergent" circles these days, but in all theological circles.
So welcome as Dr. Ray Anderson, asks the question:
What has Antioch to do with Jerusalem?
Guest blogger: Ray S. Anderson
The modern attempt to integrate the secular academy with a religious worldview took the form of the question--What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? Tertullian (160-225 A.D) was the first one to use the formula, in a negative way, and it has been replicated in a hundred different ways in our modern quest for assimilation, if not integration, of faith and reason. In my recent book, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, I argue that, for the apostle Paul, the seminal issue was not the debate at Athens but the debacle with the leaders of the church at Jerusalem. The geographical distance between Jerusalem and Antioch could be measured in miles; the theological distance was, as Kierkegaard once put it, and a point that Barth later adopted, the 'infinite, qualitative distinction between God and man.' The church at Jerusalem was held captive by the religion of Moses (Ishmael); the church at Antioch under Paul's leadership was inspired by the creative and eschatological vision of Abraham (Isaac). Thus, for Paul, the question became--What has Antioch to do with Jerusalem?
In arguing my thesis I do not intend to disparage the Christian community at Jerusalem. It was the source of an incredible spiritual force that resisted attempts to suppress and even destroy it. When those who were dispersed due to persecution fled to other cities, including Antioch, they carried with them the gift and power of the Spirit along with the message of a crucified and risen Messiah. When I contrast Antioch and Jerusalem it is for the purpose of sharpening the focus on the content and direction of the emergent theology uniquely envisioned and proclaimed by the apostle Paul. In reading the growing body of literature coming out of the emerging church movement, I worry that a postmodern philosophy has too easily become a hermeneutical criterion in which attempts to make the message if the gospel culturally relevant is in danger of presenting 'another gospel.' I argue, instead, that the contemporaneity of Christ is not established by attempts to make the historical Jesus relevant to our culture, but is the result of the eschatological 'moment' (chairos) of the resurrected Christ occurring through the Holy Spirit in our time as a proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God. While Barth held that the Word of God becomes contemporary through the preaching event, Bonhoeffer argued that it is Christ himself who is contemporary through the church--'Christ exists as community.' I take this to be more in line with Paul's view of the emerging church at Antioch and through the mission out of Antioch, that Christ, not merely the message about Christ, is the essential content of the gospel and the formative character of the church.
This is why I argue that we must recover an emergent theology, not merely explore the edges of an emerging church in its attempt to make the message culturally relevant. Here is my case: An emergent theology is messianic. That is, it is a theology that is anointed and Spirit-led to point the way forward. An emergent theology is like the finger of John the Baptist, pointing into the world and saying, "Here is the lamb of God" (John 1:29). Emerging churches are missional. That is, these are churches that only exist as the continuing mission of Christ (the Messiah) in the world. Emerging churches are like Jesus arising out of the water of baptism, anointed by the Spirit, and moving into the streets and market place to heal, promote justice and seek peace. An emergent theology is revelational. It is a theology of the Word; it is the bread come down from heaven; it speaks truth and opens minds and hearts. Emerging churches are reformational. They seek to put new wine into new wineskins; they want to renew the church that already exists and translate the older formulas of the faith into new paradigms of contemporary communication. An emergent theology is Kingdom coming. It is a theology that proclaims a new order of God's reign already present as a transforming spiritual, social and economic power of liberation and rehabilitation of humankind. Emerging churches stress Kingdom living. They seek to be the gathering of all who seek the blessing of being 'grace-filled' believers and the empowering community that sends them forth as Spirit-filled disciples. An emergent theology is eschatological. It has the mind of the risen and coming Christ as well as the heart and soul of the historical Jesus. It is a theology that keeps hope alive by preparing the way of the future into the present while, at the same time, keeping faith alive by "looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:10). Emerging churches are incarnational. Their language is that of the people; their message is communicated through culture; their presence in the world is ordinary so as to get within arms length to embrace others with extraordinary love.
tags: Ray Anderson, emerging church, emergent theology, ministry
Posted by rhett at July 14, 2006 12:31 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rhettsmith.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/491
Comments
Alright. I'm sold. Here is a theology that is present in life and not only in the classroom. It is an integration of pneumatology (of the Holy Spirit) with ecclesiology and mission. If emergent to Anderson is about a living and present God who guides us in the now (even when he's turning over tables) than I want emergence.
In Christ,
Andrew
Posted by: andrew ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rhettsmith.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 14, 2006 11:48 AM
Dr. Anderson never ceases to amaze me with his insight. It is so refreshing to hear his voice join the emergent conversation.
"...the contemporaneity of Christ is not established by attempts to make the historical Jesus relevant to our culture, but is the result of the eschatological 'moment' (chairos) of the resurrected Christ occurring through the Holy Spirit in our time as a proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God."
It sounds like Dr. Anderson is arguing that by His very nature, the Risen Jesus is already relevant and revealed in Community. The onus then is on the church to rediscover what it means to live in that Community as a the proper representation of a risen and living Lord. No where in his post do I read Dr. Anderson advocating a "stylistic shift", but rather a call to reconsider what it means to be united as the Body of Christ, in Community, a Community that Bohoeffer describes as the means to experience the relevent Christ. In other words to live out "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth (here; now but not yet) as it (already) is in heaven". This then becomes the "proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God"...right?
I am on track with this?
If I am on track, then certainly stylist changes in the way we "do church" would follow. The problem I see is that many churches are folding to the temptation to "frost the cake before it's baked". In other words, we are moving too quickly into "emergent services" before developing "emergent theology."
This conversation excites me, and I would love to get your feedback (either Rhett, Dr. Anderson or both). I look forward to reading the book (it should ship on 8/29 !!!). Thanks for post!
Posted by: Bernie Wohlfarth at July 15, 2006 11:51 AM
I love these thoughts! I look forward to reading more, Rhett. Thanks to Dr. Anderson.
Posted by: Rich Kirkpatrick at July 15, 2006 12:15 PM
Rhett I hope this one gets through.
Dr. Anderson, I really appreciate your thoughts here.
If I am understanding you correctly than I think I would have to agree with your concern "that a postmodern philosophy has too easily become a hermeneutical criterion in which attempts to make the message if the gospel culturally relevant is in danger of presenting 'another gospel.'" About a year or two ago I dove into some of the more prominent writings on the emerging church because I was thirsty for more of what I believe you describe here as being incarnational. My question is this: How do we use the language "of the people" without making the mistake of so many Christians before us (liberal protestants and some evangelicals to name a few) of exalting cultural relevance to the point where we are "in danger of presenting 'another gospel'"?
Also, I absolutely love what you have to say about an emergent theology being eschatological! Several years ago, I traded in the dispensationalism of my upbringing for covenant (and amillenial) theology. But unfortunately with that I lost a sense of how important it is to have a "theology of hope" that looks forward with expectancy to the promise of renewal in the eschaton (to plagiarize Moltmann).
I am looking forward to reading your book.
Blessings,
Wayne B.
Posted by: wayne at July 18, 2006 08:01 PM
The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his own age.
G.K. Chesterton
Posted by: tarwater at July 19, 2006 02:19 PM
Thanks for the heads up, man. I will add this book to my ever-growing stack of books to read (and probably give it a boost to the top). For a movement that is struggling somewhat with formulating a coherent theology (and asking if a coherent theology" is necessary in the first place), this promises to be a great read.
Posted by: jakebouma at July 22, 2006 03:34 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
