Emergent and Doctrinal Statements

Last updated on: May 5, 2006 at 5:45 am by Scot McKnight

Emergent and Doctrinal Statements 2006-05-05T05:45:18-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Yesterday Tony Jones published a statement by LeRon Shults about whether or not Emergent should have a doctrinal statement. LeRon says “No, Emergent shouldn’t have a statement of faith.” I stand with those who think Emergent should not have a statement of faith, but I would narrow my reasons to one basic consideration. So here’s the statement by LeRon and my comments follow:

From Tony Jones, National Coordinator, Emergent-U.S.
Yes, we have been inundated with requests for our statement of faith in Emergent, but some of us had an inclination that to formulate something would take us down a road that we don’t want to trod. So, imagine our joy when a leading theologian joined our ranks and said that such a statement would be disastrous. That’s what happened when we started talking to LeRon Shults, late of Bethel Seminary and now heading off to a university post in Norway. LeRon is the author of many books, all of which you should read, and now the author a piece to guide us regarding statements of faith and doctrine. Read on…
From LeRon Shults:
The coordinators of Emergent have often been asked (usually by their critics) to proffer a doctrinal statement that lays out clearly what they believe. I am merely a participant in the conversation who delights in the ongoing reformation that occurs as we bring the Gospel into engagement with culture in ever new ways. But I have been asked to respond to this ongoing demand for clarity and closure. I believe there are several reasons why Emergent should not have a “statement of faith” to which its members are asked (or required) to subscribe. Such a move would be unnecessary, inappropriate and disastrous.
Why is such a move unnecessary? Jesus did not have a “statement of faith.” He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a “statement of faith” is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties – and this brings us to the next point.
Such a move would be inappropriate. Various communities throughout church history have often developed new creeds and confessions in order to express the Gospel in their cultural context, but the early modern use of linguistic formulations as “statements” that allegedly capture the truth about God with certainty for all cultures and contexts is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, such an approach presupposes a (Platonic or Cartesian) representationalist view of language, which has been undermined in late modernity by a variety of disciplines across the social and physical sciences (e.g., sociolinguistics and paleo-biology). Why would Emergent want to force the new wine of the Spirit’s powerful transformation of communities into old modernist wineskins? Second, and more importantly from a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.
Why would it be disastrous? Emergent aims to facilitate a conversation among persons committed to living out faithfully the call to participate in the reconciling mission of the biblical God. Whether it appears in the by-laws of a congregation or in the catalog of an educational institution, a “statement of faith” tends to stop conversation. Such statements can also easily become tools for manipulating or excluding people from the community. Too often they create an environment in which real conversation is avoided out of fear that critical reflection on one or more of the sacred propositions will lead to excommunication from the community. Emergent seeks to provide a milieu in which others are welcomed to join in the pursuit of life “in” the One who is true (1 John 5:20). Giving into the pressure to petrify the conversation in a “statement” would make Emergent easier to control; its critics could dissect it and then place it in a theological museum alongside other dead conceptual specimens the curators find opprobrious. But living, moving things do not belong in museums. Whatever else Emergent may be, it is a movement committed to encouraging the lively pursuit of God and to inviting others into a delightfully terrifying conversation along the way.
This does not mean, as some critics will assume, that Emergent does not care about belief or that there is no role at all for propositions. Any good conversation includes propositions, but they should serve the process of inquiry rather than shut it down. Emergent is dynamic rather than static, which means that its ongoing intentionality is (and may it ever be) shaped less by an anxiety about finalizing state-ments than it is by an eager attention to the dynamism of the Spirit’s disturbing and comforting presence, which is always reforming us by calling us into an ever-intensifying participation in the Son’s welcoming of others into the faithful embrace of God.

What I like most about Emergent is that it is wondrous conversation (at times), and there are no doubt plenty who would agree with LeRon Shults here. I agree with the thrust of his points but I would restrict my rationale to his last major point. I think he will take this as a conversation and not as criticism.
First, as we learn from both Jamie Smith’s response to LeRon at Think Tank and LeRon’s agreement, there are some fine distinctions being made here:
1. That a “creed” and a “doctrinal statement” are not the same thing. LeRon connects creed to the ancient formulae of our faith and doctrinal statements to the modern day and to modernism.
2. That a “creed” functions differently than a “doctrinal statement.” The latter, so they suggest, tries to capture the truth of God, Christ, faith, etc in timeless and permanent forms. Creeds don’t do that.
3. Jesus’ non-creedal approach to theology is a consideration but not one I’d hang my coat on too often. Why? Theological commitments are implicit to Jesus’ teachings, etc., and it takes time to define a movement theologically — and the early Christians did this, and Irenaeus did this, and it evolved into the Nicene Creed. Organic development, to be sure, but not one that denied that development’s existence.
4. That creeds and doctrinal statements are never enough: we need to relate to God and others properly. LeRon’s spot-on here and this drives much of his concern, in fact perhaps more than is apparent. Emergent has its pulse right here.
So, let me complexify the conversation a bit. (I know as a NT specialist I’m not supposed to do this, as it is often the game of the philosophers.)
Second, I’m not so sure the distinction between creed and doctrinal statement is that clear, but I do maintain that we all tend to operate a few levels: creed (defining classical orthodoxy), confessions (denominational statements that specify more than creeds), and doctrinal statements (denominational or otherwise statements that tend to be more specific to local churches). There is a spectrum here — that is what I’m saying and I’m not so sure I’d make as radical of distinctions as either Jamie or LeRon make — but I could be wrong. I often am.
Third, while I agree with LeRon that some doctrinal statements make too robust of claims, can become too arrogant, and at times get too puffy, I’m not so skeptical about the potency of language to capture truth. In general, I think LeRon permits himself some (delightfully fun) overstatements with some via negativa comments in his first two points. Our language never exhausts the truth but it can tell the truth — or articulate the truth as we know it and experience it. Our critics will immediately point out here that there are false dichotomies, and while I think LeRon is ranking things with the method called via negativa, I’m afraid he’ll be misunderstood. His comment back to Jamie Smith at Think Tank shows that he agrees with our suggestions (I think).
As I think about this a bit, I wonder if Lindbeck’s more linguistic community paradigm might ask of us to come up with a little more of a set of theological claims to identify.
Fourth, however, Emergent should not offer a doctrinal statement. Emergent is not a denomination; nor is it an affiliation of churches on the basis of shared theological commitments. Emergent is a clearing-house for a conversation, an affiliation of friends who, whether as individuals or churches or groups or publishers, want to communicate with one another and explore a vast array of practices and theological concepts.
We have enough doctrinal statements and confessions.
Emergent has expressed that is living out a Christian faith today that derives from the classical creeds as it says at Emergent Village, “affirming the historic Christian faith.”
The historic faith is enough to sustain legitimate bounds to a conversation; that is what Emergent is.
I do think Emergent could help itself by making it a little clearer that it affirms the historic faith (at least more often), but I’m not sure its critics care to listen to Emergent when it says these things. I wish I didn’t have to say this, but we have to because so many critics refuse to listen to the affirmations that are made.
But, it would not be right for what Emergent is doing to (1) define itself by a doctrinal statement and then (2) require that its affiliations and friends agree to that if they want to participate in the conversation. The genius of Emergent is that it is a conversation and it wants the conversation to be open enough that all kinds of things can be brought to the table.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 5, 2006

Speaking of Doctrinal Statements

Next Post

May 5, 2006 Students who want to leave class

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the Christian teaching about temptation?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Give in quickly Resist and pray for strength Ignore it Deny it exists