An aspect of the postmodern theology expressed in the Emerging Church/Emergent movement that has drawn continued criticism from conservative Evangelical circles has to do with theological standardization – or more precisely, a lack thereof. When one looks to history we see that the Catholic and Orthodox streams of the Church determined and continue to determine their standardization in relation to the hierarchy of the church. For the Catholics that meant Papal authority, that later evolved into a theology of full-on papal infallibility. For the Eastern Orthodox it lay in the council of bishops representing the various autocephalous churches. When the Protestant Reformation took place, sola scriptura became the new rallying cry amongst those staging the protest.

And then comes along this entity loosely calling itself the Emerging Church. What of its source for standardization? If many of us in the EC crowd consider ourselves post-Evangelical, does that also mean that we are post-sola-scriptura? I think for many of us, myself included, the answer to this question would have to be, yes; the main reason being that many of us recognize that this standardization is really based only on one particular reading of Scripture. Indeed, one could say that it is a systematic theology projected as much onto the various books and genres of Scripture as it is a theology derived from it.

So, that being the case, if we in Emergent/Emerging circles don’t look to Rome, to a council of bishops, or to a particular, systematized reading of Scripture as our point of theological orientation, then where exactly do we look? Well, while the EC conversation has been avoiding this particular topic for quite some while, a new thread- if you will- has recently emerged. The term contextual theology is being used to describe what we in the EC might call our standardization source.

Now I’m sure such a term will drive fear into the hearts of many an Evangelical and perhaps, to a lesser degree, to many a Catholic and/or Orthodox. The expression “contextual theology” sounds very, well… relative, doesn’t it? And doesn’t relativity kind of fly in the face of the very meaning of standardization- which many see as a permanent, unchanging, fixed pole? Clearly some deconstruction is in order.

Before we address the potential dangers of contextual theology, let us first discuss how it is arrived at to begin with. It should be noted that, again – according to postmodern understanding – it is not so much that we aim for contextual theology. You see, to a large extent, it just happens. Yes, please start the bumper sticker print run: “Contextual Theology Happens”. The idea being that whenever you have a group of people forming a collective in one particular geographic area you’re going to get unique contextualization. And that’s true for all aspects of life and conceptions of reality, of which theology is just a part.

One could compare the process – for that’s certainly what it is, an ongoing process that has no beginning and no end – to the emergence of a dialect. When a group of people start existing (i.e. living, working and playing) in isolation, they begin to talk differently- as a collective. As individuals they don’t necessarily all speak in the same way exactly, but when compared to other groups they sound collectively unique and, to some degree, homogonous. Now, that isn't to say that this new group isn't going to have things in common with other groups. English speaking countries, for example, might feature unique dialects, but they all still share a certain "orthodoxy" with the mother tongue.

Makes sense, right? Okay, but what of the rather glaring flaw in such a theory of theology? After all, such a process, or processes, does nothing to ensure a fixed center that holds the whole thing together, right? Is this the famous slippery slope that Evangelicals have railed against from the very beginning? Is this the road to Hell? Or at least to the spawning ground for all things heretical? Well, perhaps. At least, it might look that way to begin with. But when we step back a little, so as to gain perspective on some of our modernistic, Enlightenment inspired assumptions, perhaps not. Let us proceed. Tony Jones, national coordinator for Emergent - the most well-recognized and well-organized expression of the Emerging Church movement - has said that when we look to history we find that heresy happens, not when democracy runs our theological and ecclesial constructs, but when an elite individual or finite group makes all the authoritative decisions for the larger whole. Rather humorously, Tony reminds us that David Koresh didn’t spawn a heretical cult by opening up a theology debate amongst his fellow Branch Dividians. Obviously, quite the opposite was the case. Heresy takes place when authoritative decisions are arrived at by a select one, or few. Whereas when egalitarian, democratic models are followed, there tends to be - as the expression goes - safety in numbers. Groupthink, as one might call it, tends to round off the rough edges of individuals pulling the wagon too far in either direction of the road. And as a result the integrity of the group identity is protected.

If you think that this kind of idea is just another way-out brainstorm of the EC movement, it’s helpful to remember that history actually affords us a long line of such examples; where the group protects the whole from the way-ward leanings of the select few. When one first looks to Eastern Orthodoxy it might appear to be anything but an egalitarian, democratic expression of Church. And yet, history tells us that there have been moments in time where the laity has revolted against the perceived heretical decisions of a particular bishop or minor council. Now, because a select few (a collection of bishops for instance) have perceived authority, that heretical decision may have carried sway, at least as an “official” stance, for some time. But eventually, continued grassroots revolt against the perceived heresy (which was in reality not much more than a capitulation to political interests), results in a shift in policy by a later authoritative council. And so the collective sense of orthodoxy ultimately wins out. But what protected that sense of orthodoxy? Not the elite, authoritative few, but the groupthink of the Church at large.

Is what Jones and others are prescribing all that different than this? The methodology might look a little different; but, at a root level, the process is the same. Both are examples of the protections present in a model of contextual theology. And of course, the historical occurrence within the life of the Eastern Orthodox Church that I just reiterated is just one such example of groupthink saving the collective from the heretical tendencies of the select few. One could argue that the entire Protestant Reformation is just one more example of the very same phenomena. When the collective sense of Orthodoxy is threatened a certain critical mass forms to resist the actions of the said authority.

Getting back to the Evangelical critique of anchorless Emerging theology: in all honesty, can the collection of letters, poems, wisdom sayings, and apocalyptic pronouncements that make up our Bible, really be said to form a fixed point on the theological horizon- as Evangelicals would have us believe? No. Not really. And of course the Catholics and the Orthodox (along with the EC’ers) already recognize this. That’s why the Catholics and the Orthodox trust another authority (the Pope and the Council of Bishops respectively) to anchor their understandings of various Biblical writings. All we in the Emerging/Emergent Church crowd are really saying is that, perhaps even these safeguards are more formal than functional. Perhaps, in the end, the inspired majority rules.

What if Orthodoxy is not so much a fixed point on the horizon as it is an inspired energy, transporting the people of God who together hold the truth? With this understanding comes a strong theology of the Holy Spirit. A theology that holds (just as Jesus promised) that the Spirit of God is ultimately both the source and the guide that steers the vessel on its ongoing journey into dynamic truth. Now, put in such a way, doesn’t this sound like a rather Orthodox perspective after all? Ultimately, can we trust “contextual theology”? Well, perhaps these lessons in history merely remind us that we’ve already been doing so, you know, for the last 2000 years or so.