I am frequently frustrated and surprised (though the more I see it, the less so) when critics of the Emergent/Emerging Church conversation write these expansive essays about the movement, touching in some detail upon the beliefs expressed within it, only to finish with conclusions – clearly meant to discredit the movement - based solely on blatant mischaracterizations. Why go to such trouble? Why put so much real, academic legwork into the process, only to offer conclusions that seem to contradict the whole spirit of journalistic accuracy to begin with?

Case in point: I recently came across an article titled, The Kingdom of Emergent Theology, which, no doubt, was written to serve as the tell-all, defeat-all expose on the Emerging Church conversation. Now, on the one hand, the article is long and fairly comprehensive. But the problem is that some basic misrepresentations of the EC prop up the entire argument. These misrepresentations are clear at both the outset and the conclusion of the article.

Early on, the author, Gary E. Gilley, writes:

The emergent church is a movement deeply concerned with impacting the culture.  But evidence is mounting to the effect that culture is having more impact on the emergent movement than the other way around.  As a matter of fact emergent seems to be chasing culture, even imitating culture, rather than changing it.  The reason this is true has to do with its understanding of the kingdom of God. 

This may be an interesting, even provocative point, but where is the evidence- even anecdotal- to support it? The author says, “evidence is mounting…”. Really? What evidence? Is there even one example offered? Nope. Seems like a blatant case of foundationless stereotyping if you ask me. I think the author merely notices that some forms of Emergent expression look different than traditional worship expression, and assumes therefore that EC’ers are merely chasing culture, imitating it, etc. But the case is never actually made- just stated as if it is a matter of common knowledge.

The author then goes about doing a fairly decent job of explaining that EC theology puts a real emphasis on the Kingdom of God; and specifically on the effect the inauguration of the Kingdom of God is intended to have on the world we now live in- as opposed merely to life in the “next world”.

All true. All good. This is a real thrust put forward in the EC movement.

But then, towards the end of the article, the author pulls “a fast one”. Or, at least, he tries to. Any discerning reader (with eyes to see what’s really going on) sees the trick for what it is. Gilley writes,

Emergent kingdom theology, like its liberal postmillennial predecessor, is based not so much on the observation of an improving world but on feelings of desperation. McLaren admits that many might see his kingdom views as a mere pipe dream, but if that is so, “what do [we] have to look forward to if they are right?  Simply more of the same in human history.”

Here it is clear that Brian is asking a rhetorical question. He is not attempting to offer a vague justification for an unbiblical theology. And yet, Gilley takes this comment completely out of its context, offering the following conclusion:

But truth does not emerge from groundless optimism or “what if” desperation; it emerges from the Scriptures.  What God says about life now, the future and the kingdom is what matters.  In answer to McLaren’s question, we have much to look forward to, for Christ will one day bring His kingdom to earth, at which time the very social and earthly issues that concern emergent people will be corrected and made right.  But this kingdom will come through the power of Christ, not the good deeds of men. It will come when He returns, not as a prelude to it.  It will not only remedy societal wrongs it will usher in the world-wide righteousness and justice of Christ.  We have much to look forward to when the kingdom comes, but it will come about because of God’s actions, not ours.  It is right that we seek to correct social ills, but our actions do not usher in Christ’s kingdom.

Yikes! Stop with the false assumptions already! First of all, clearly, Brian and others within the EC are not developing a theology out of a sense of optimism- groundless or otherwise, but forwarding a theology as seen evidenced in the Scriptures! Come now, where’s the intellectual honesty here? I find it hard to believe the author of this article does not see that he is twisting Brian’s words to form the kind of admission that they are never intended to offer.

And that begs the question: if this author knows, deep-down anyway, that Brian is not really developing a theology out of real-world desperation, but rather from a simultaneous interaction with scripture and reality, then what is really going on here? Why is the author misrepresenting Brian's theology?

Perhaps it’s because he doesn't know how to deal with co-existing interpretations of scripture. I suppose it’s much easier to deal with the 20th century mainline theology that seemed intent on distancing itself from the scriptures. There you have an easily identifiable, easily delineated "other". But what do you do with a movement that offers an alternative reading of scripture- based on historical data and factors such as genre awareness that you've never even factored into the equation? That's a recipe for cognitive, theological dissonance if ever there was one!

Now, getting back to the misrepresentations, no one within EC circles believes it is our “good works” alone that save anyone. This whole false division between works and faith is so ridiculous when seen from beyond the narrow lens of modernism. The point is that the Spirit of God inspires us, enables us, emboldens us, to continue the mission begun by Jesus and the early disciples. Word to the wise: Faith does not exist in an existential vacuum.

Okay, I’ll stop to breathe now. But man oh man, this can get frustrating. It’s so ironic when these critics, who seem to build their own theologies around a seeming obsession with propositional logic, almost completely ignore such criteria when fleshing out their own criticism of the EC. Bottom line: this is a case, one of many, of cruel and unusual theologizing.

So what is the intellectually honest thing to say here? Because, after all, clear differences in theological opinion do exist.

Well, I think Doug Pagitt made a simple, yet profound point when asked recently about how Emergent thinking differs from the theology purported by people such as Mark Driscoll. Pagitt merely said: “I think we’re describing two different Christianities.”

Well said. That really is the truth, isn’t it. This is not a mere haggling over loose details. Imagine this in terms of two different suitcases attempting to contain a set of clothes representing the composite aspects of our faith: scriptural tradition, reality paradigms, existential experience, etc. In other words, this is really about two distinct meta-narratives; or, as Doug puts it, two distinct visions of Christianity. I think the admission of the reality of these co-existing visions leads, by necessity, to the kind of "generous orthodoxy" Brian has described and called for in years past.

And, in the end, not only is this probably the most intellectually honest way to describe the situation, but Brothers and Sisters, it just might be the most charitable as well.