In my last post I mentioned that I wanted to spend a few posts discussing why I think Stetzer's categories for emerging churches are unhelpful and, in some sense, foundationally flawed. I have three primary criticisms of the framework that Stetzer has proposed: first, his criteria for assigning a person or group to a given category are suspect; second, the categories themselves are based on a flawed premise; and third, the use to which the categories are put is ultimately damaging (which may, in fairness, go beyond Stetzer's original intent). I do want to say at the outset that, of anyone that I would expect to be able to provide a helpful and friendly criticism of emerging churches, it would be Stetzer. His own work has much in common with emerging churches - although I've never heard him described as "emerging" (for whatever that's worth), he writes extensively on missional engagement with culture. His books, no doubt, would be found on many of the bookshelves of those of us who identify with the emerging church. In other words, this is a critic to whom we should pay heed - he knows his stuff. On the other hand, this also contributes somewhat to my own disappointment with what has been offered thus far.

My primary disappointment, then, is Stetzer's stated criteria for categorizing a person or group. It's self-evident that his categories are intended to move on a reactionary scale from benign to cautious to alarmed, with the Relevants being the first and the Revisionists being the last. But it's interesting what it is that causes Stetzer to move along that continuum. It's fairly clear that, at the end of the day, he's looking for consistency in content. This, in and of itself, isn't bad - if, for example, we were looking for consistency with the Apostles' Creed, then we would quite naturally be concerned with deviation from or denial of its claims. But Stetzer's field of vision here starts to narrow rather quickly. What causes alarm in his framework? Forms of church governance, egalitarianism, and atonement models, for a start. I'm not going to delve into exegesis here, because that's not my point. Suffice to say, though, that on each of these particular questions, the arguments that are being advanced on all sides are being done so primarily on the basis of Scripture. Many of us are reading the text and coming to different conclusions than those which have been handed down to us. So when Stetzer says that those who he identifies as Reconstructionists - on the basis of things like what I've mentioned above - "fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God", I have to cry foul. This isn't a simple matter of selective proof-texting on the part of emerging churches. This is a matter of being actively engaged with the biblical text and coming away from that encounter with a different understanding of those issues.

And nowhere could this be more evident than the question of the nature of the gospel - another issue which Stetzer sees as dangerous. Is it fair to ask questions about the nature of the gospel? I believe - and quite strongly - that it is not only fair, but it is also imperative. We absolutely should be asking questions about the gospel. Is the gospel primarily about how to get to heaven when we die, or is it about something more? Is the gospel primarily about my personal relationship with Jesus, or is it about his formation of a new people who together learn to love God and love each other? Is the gospel primarily good news about the future, or is it the revelation that God's Kingdom has broken into the present? Is it about escaping this world to live in a spiritual state of bliss, or is it about the restoration of this world to its original God-shaped purposes?

At its core, then, the framework that Stetzer proposes begs the question of the role of theology. Is theology only about restating the lessons of the past, or is it about entering the biblical narrative to find answers to the questions that a new context brings? To go further, are the lessons of the past deemed off-limits to further questions, and if so, which ones? And how would this framework have functioned in other eras of church history? The Reformation also raised many of these same questions - and for those of us indebted to a Protestant heritage, we would do well to remember that returning to scripture to reframe our understanding of what it is, exactly, that we believe is a hallmark of precisely that heritage.

Personally, I would rather see matters of historical orthodoxy - those answered in the great creeds, for example - be elevated to this status as the demarcation between faithfulness and heresy. This, then, is the first area where Stetzer's framework falls short. It fails to identify appropriately the ways in which emerging churches are wrestling with scripture and, instead, imposes bounds that are more restrictive than those required of historical orthodoxy.

Technorati Tags: emerging church, Stetzer