Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?