The ECM Series Part 2

The Bibliology of the Emergent Church Movement

After establishing the epistemology of the Emergent Church Movement (ECM; which is a Postmodern epistemology), the next step is to look at the theological issues that such an epistemology would affect. The first area that will be examined is Bibliology.

Most Emergent churches will state a claim to hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scriptures. While these claims sound good (and orthodox), one must bear in mind that often a different meaning is implied whether stated or not.[1] Not to mention the fact that there is always a Postmodern agenda which disrupts the clear implications that such a teaching would limit. How can they know that “all Scripture is inspired” if such a propositional truth statement is unknowable? When propositional truths like “Your Word is truth” (cf. John 17:17) and “Scripture cannot be broken” (cf. John 10:35) are made, how can they claim to hold total inerrancy when clinging to a Postmodern philosophy of truth? They have no basis in which to say objectively that Scripture is inspired and inerrant since their epistemology they claim to adhere to rejects most forms of objectivity (especially when dealing with truth claims). So while they may not reject these essentials on the surface, they definitely do not do anything to solidify or promote these doctrines.

For example, Anderson, in his book An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, says of his own church, “The Bible is our norm here. We are a church that recognizes the Bible as Word of God and our final authority.” This statement does not sound very offensive to the orthodox view of Scripture. In fact, many could repeat this statement in good conscience with strong conviction. But Anderson continues in the next sentence saying, “There is no attempt to prove that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it is simply used as having authority. If one were to question the preacher as to issues of redaction criticism (who really wrote some of the letters of Paul) and inerrancy (is every word true?) the response would probably be, ‘We are too busy here doing kingdom of God work to spend time on such issues.’”[2] So while the issues of inspiration or inerrancy may be assumed to be true, the study or defense of such doctrines are not encouraged. Therefore, there is a genesis of minimizing the foundational doctrines of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

The hermeneutic of the ECM leads to an accepted practice of multiple interpretations based on various opinions as well life experiences. After all, who is to say who is correct and who is incorrect when objective, absolute truth is uncertain? A Postmodern hermeneutic is a subjective hermeneutic. Anderson, who incorrectly uses the term “textual criticism” to refer to exegesis says,

The task of the interpreter [is] to discern the original intent of the author of the text or, as in some cases, the way that the text emerged through a process of involving more than one author and in some cases an unknown author. This approach, while attempting to extract truthful content from the Scripture text, does not really get to the depth of the Word of God as living Word with a contemporary voice, but merely extends the surface of the text backward as a conceptual act – for there is no way actually to recover the historical moment in which the text emerged. (emphasis mine)[3]

This exemplifies the unknowability of objective truth even in the process of hermeneutics, exegesis, and Scripture study.

Lastly, Biblical authority is questioned in the ECM. Since in the ECM, orthodoxy stems from orthopraxy (which it must since the above subjective hermeneutic would not allow for an objective orthodoxy), it is left up to the whim of the people about what is and isn’t correct doctrine or practice.

Ray S. Anderson tells of a story about a situation where a man and woman in his church had both been divorced and sought to marry each other(the woman even admitted that “I was not the innocent party of the divorce”). Anderson gives an obvious pastor’s dilemma. But what is worse is that the woman came to the pastor already understanding the dilemma and wanted council to justify what she knew to be wrong. She asked him, “But Pastor, on which side is God? Is God on the side of the Bible, or is God on our side in our new relationship in Christ?” The question is obviously flawed. Anderson’s response says it all: “I could not and would not use the words of Jesus to cancel out the work of Jesus in his [sic] redemption of those who were not able to live by the law.”[4] Your view on divorce and remarriage is not relevant to this example of questioning Biblical authority. What we can observe is that these people saw what was in their minds a clear Scriptural teaching against divorce and remarriage, and yet they avoided carrying it out in their lives. The errors are numerous here. Obviously, the words of Jesus would never cancel out the work of Jesus. That must also mean that Anderson misunderstands the work of Jesus (since he seems to understand the clear teachings however contradictory they may be to his views of the work of Jesus, though ironically this would take an objective hermeneutic).

What we are left with is more instability in the ECM. One can only imagine where such a flawed Bibliology will take the ECM. Stay tuned to find out.

Timothy L. Decker
-----------------------
[1] A good example of this is McLaren’s statement of belief in inspiration in A General Orthodoxy, pg. 159. On pg. 161, he later defines inspiration as something dealing with creativity and nothing to do with the accurate recording of Scripture.
[2] pg. 59.
[3] Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 124.
[4] Anderson, Emergent Theology, 131-132. What is even worse is Anderson’s rationalization for marrying this couple. First his avoidance to the Pauline mandates is a clear example of the WWJD centered theological mentality. But Anderson goes on to rationalize remarriage in this situation by saying, “When Jesus said that humans were not made for the Sabbath but that the Sabbath was made for humans (Mark 2:27-28), I took that also to apply to marriage. Humans were not made just to live under the law of marriage with no mercy or failure, but marriage was made for the benefit of humans” (pg. 132).
[*] This picture comes from a website full of many other hilarious ECM motivators (satirical of course). Check them out here.