The Emergent Statement on their Non-Statement of Faith

Emergent US has issued a statement stating that their faith is not one that requires a statement of faith.

In his introduction to the Emergent-US statement, Tony Jones stated that many have asked for a statement of faith but that this would take them down a road they didn't want to go.  So instead of a statement of faith they issued a statement from LeRon Shults.

In his statement, LeRon Shults stated, among other things, that a statement of faith would be disastrous for emergent.  In a statement stating what he apparently believes about statements of belief he says:

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.

I was going to write one of my patented sleep inducing book length posts on this but Andy Jackson has summed up what I might have said much better than I could have said it, and much shorter.

Emergent-Us seems happy that they don’t have to clarify what they believe. Why? Because a “leading theologian” said that such a statement would be disastrous. This so-called leading theologian was LeRon Shults. I have never heard of him. Shults supported a don’t ask, don’t tell statement of faith because “Jesus did not have a “statement of faith.”

This is just stupid.

Well said Andy, well said. 

Comments

[wzph]

I had some similar thoughts.

http://li.mn/faith/church/2006/05/04/372/no-doctrinal-statement-for-emergent

[Bruce Gerencser]

The critics of the emerging/emergent Church desperately want to paint the movement as non-doctrinal or anti-doctrinal. That way we can write off the whole thing as liberal, apostate,etc. Nice try but it won't work.

Emerging Churches are not anti-confessional. Far from it, There are many Churches that are decidedly confessional and liturgical. As far as "Emergent" is concerned they are a broad base fellowship of people. A confession necessarily limits fellowship and unity. Emergent as a whole has a clear christology and that should be sufficent. Let's use our common faith in Christ as a starting point for our fellowship.

Many of us who are those liberal emerging/emergent types are tired of confessions of faith being used as a rule of who and who is not true followers of Jesus Christ. Having pastored in Reformed/Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches I have seen (and done so myself) confessions used as THE STANDARD. Not The Scriptures (so much for sola sciptura)but the Confession. It is even worse in Presbyterian circles where the Westminister is THE STANDARD (are they not called the Wesminster Standards?) rather than the Scriptures. Yes, the confessions generally state what the Scripture teaches, but it is amazing how quickly it becomes Confession first, Scriptures second.

I am clearly in the emerging/emergent camp. No apologies. I, along with others, do not appreciate being painted as non or anti-doctrinal. It is a straw man argument with no basis in truth.

Some of us do not have all the answers.........that is what the emgerging/emergent conversation is all about. Some of us are not willing to rest our faith on the words of good men from the past. Instead we desire to rest our faith on the sure word of prophecy, the Scriptures. We must not blindly trust what others have said. Yes, we must respect the past and give wide space to the teachings of the past, BUT we must, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, plough our own ground.

All in all brother I love your blog and I have been a devoted reader. I believe you are wide of the mark on this one.

Thank you
Bruce Gerencser

[Baus]

[off topic]... Heard you had a bday recently. Which day? Mine was the 3rd. How 'bout you?

[James D.]

Bruce wrote, "The critics of the emerging/emergent Church desperately want to paint the movement as non-doctrinal or anti-doctrinal. That way we can write off the whole thing as liberal, apostate,etc. Nice try but it won't work."

On the contrary, without any clear statement of belief, it probably will be all too easy for opponents to paint the movement any way they like. Who's going to refute them? And on what basis?

"Here's what we believe. Now judge us by our fruit." What's the problem with that?

[Hugh Williams]

Nobody tell Greg Koukl about this, OK? He'll get so hot all of Southern Cal will have to go into rolling blackouts to cover the sudden spike in A/C usage.

[pavel/addai]

Jolly I really love your coverage of Emergent! I am a former particpant from one of the big postmodern/emergent web boards. And this stuff is precisely that drove me crazy. Infact I'm pretty sure I've debated the guy your talking about here, who post on that board under a pseudoname.

Anyway now that I'm gone from there, please keep me informed with news like this!

[Jeff]

"This is just stupid."

"Well said Andy, well said."

Yes, that does pretty well sum it up. Self-proclaimed "emergents" will wear this decision as a badge of honor, though. A statement of faith is the last thing the non-movement emergent movement is interested in.

[ZacMan]

Jesus didn't have a statement of faith? Well now, let me think.
I remember that he said something about being "about his fathers business"
Then there was something like..."Repent and believe the Gospel"
Then he had a great sermon while sitting on a mountain.
He said things like, "I am the way the truth and the life." "I am the fount of living water." "I am the bread of life."
Ahhh he's right, no statement of faith.

[David]

Apparently Emergents don't want a confession of faith out of fear that it might lead to the possibility of problems.

This is the same kind of thinking that led some to think that any kind of alcohol would possibly lead to drunkedness, so just ban alcohol altogether. Worse yet, some even taught that Paul's admonisions to Timothy to use wine to help is stomach was actually a suggestion to rub it on his stomach like Vap-o-rub. I'm not making this stuff up. Rather than accept the fact that Scripture DOES give room for use of alcohol (Jesus didn't turn wine into water), a fear leads to wierd teachings.

Fear of the possibility of doctrinal confusion should not stop Emergents from actually believing the GOOD truths of Jesus being the only way. But apparently they don't want to start down a path that might possibly maybe in a small way lead to the chance of actually dealing with some truth and maybe..... disagreeing with someone.... which sometimes I think must be the unpardonable sin in their bible.

[rinnt]

Huh??

Emergent ALREADY HAS a "Statement of Faith." Except they call it an "Order of Rule" (sounds Masonic). It's full of faith statements, so it must be a statement of faith.

[Jason]

It is funny - a statement that says we do not have a statement. The self-refuting nature of it all brings a chuckle. But I really want to reach out to these folks and really attempt to understand why and what they are doing (or trying to do). Perhaps we who like statements and like to stand on them firmly can learn something here? Perhaps if we are loving and gentle we can pull our emmerging brothers back toward a balanced position.

May the Lord allow the Body of Christ to wash each other's feet well in these days.

[Jeff]

Jason, you said: "Perhaps if we are loving and gentle we can pull our emmerging brothers back toward a balanced position."

Dude, after spending over two years interacting with emergent/pomo types on one of their msg boards I can say thay they HATE this type of sentiment and would eat you alive if you made that statement in their presence! I'm not saying that what you said is wrong. I think its commendable. But they would totally lose their minds if they thought that you were telling them that they had an imbalanced position and needed to be corrected. "Who are you to say!" sort of thing. Anyway, I'm not trying to get after you for what you said. Its just that your comment made me laugh as I imagined the reaction it would get on an emergent-type site. Peace.

[pavel/addai]

Well like I said I have encountered this before a few years ago, so I'm not suprised. I'm going to quote a passage from an Emergent pastor from a chat thread I was involved in a few years ago.

A woman stated that she didn't believe in the virgin birth, but asked if "I would be welcome and be allowed to become a member in your church?"

after I gave a series of answers explaining the important nature of that doctrine and she later admitted to also not believing that Jesus was true God and true man, that he died for our sins etc.

Immediately after he is what one Emerging pastor said:

"In our fellowship we have agreed to allow relationships to be the primary bind. If someone asks us what does your church believe we have to answer "I don't know...you will have to ask them".

The challenge has been our leadership. We have developed an open leadership community - any one desiring to lead - CAN - provided they agree to participate as a community (our understanding is this means we agree to permanent relationship). This means we can't leverage our disagreements by threat of leaving.This is somewhat problematic - but we are fighting the culture of the consumer church and the commodification of Christ - so we have agreed to live this way. The virgin birth issue came up in our leadership community as we were forming a statement about what we mean when we say we are "followers of Christ". I suggested that we adopt the apostles creed - but some rejected this because of the statement "born of the virgin Mary". Upon discussion some felt that the story of the virgin birth was a story of "holy rape and incest" God the Father forcing himself upon Mary (feminist theology) some did not believe becasue of scientific reasons - no evidence (empricist), others did not belive because of the parralells in mythology. Our dillema came as others in the leadership community were challenged to make relationship our bind - not belief - we are a "Christian Community" but it does not mean we all believe the same. We have many many diverse beliefs that exist simultaneously (our congregation has even been the subject in one book as "postmodernism gone wrong"). I contend all the time that - all congregations have diverse belief systems in spite of the churches attempt to form doctrinal statements. I ask pastors all the time "when you say this is what your church belives - who is it excatly that believes this - all the people who attend?, all the members?, all the elders? all the staff?, - who exactly is the belivers in this community?M, I think the challenge will be in leadership how will you structure the "ability to lead" the community. Sometimes leaders arise without any of the established positions - they lead simply by virtue of their "compelling relationship" My suggestion to organize not around belief - but organize around permanent realtionships that allow for diversity."

[pavel/addai]

By the way I would recommend you read this post from Tony Jones. It also explains some of the rationale
of what's going on

"Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2004/11/throwing-down-gauntlet.html