Each morning I make myself coffee and spend some time with Diane at her blog. I discovered her writings only recently and have learned considerably from her, especially with regards to postmodernism and the emerging/emergent/progressive church.

She wrote a post the other day that she thought to be important and, as a result, has kept at the top of the page. It is an important post, in some ways, but not as important as it could be.

In her post Diane takes Donald Miller to task, he being the author of Blue Like Jazz as well as the designated spiritual guy who offered the opening prayer at the interminable Democratic National Convention (which will happily end soon, only to be followed by the equally embarrassing and insipid Republican National Convention).

Diane filleted Donald because someone in a Sunday school class agreed with her on the importance of the gospel but also liked BLJ. Based on her previously detailed logic, Diane argues that this cannot be. She writes:

Ok, I think you get the gist. Here is what I want to point out. This young man in my church basically said,

[A] I agree wholeheartedly that it’s important we stress what Jesus did at the cross for us and orthodox Christianity (Note from me: with what I assume would be its attendant morals and ethics)

and

[B] Blue Like Jazz really spoke to me.

That is a classic case of A AND B, where most of us (at least those of us over 35) couldn’t fathom how anybody could put those two things together. But young postmoderns can….and do.

I am not sure I agree with or follow her argument as developed but that is tangential to my purpose here. What I would argue contra Diane is this: Emergent churches (EC) are off-track but only in a different manner as biblical (traditional or contemporary) churches (BC), albeit more dangerously so.

The problem with the EC is alluded to in Paul’s letter to Timothy. He wrote,

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.

For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,

unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,

treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these. – 2 Tim 3.1-5 (emphasis obviously mine)

Simply put, the problem with the EC is that they often have form but almost never have substance. The power and substance of Christianity is the truth of the gospel to save and continue saving mankind. Without the gospel, Christianity is little more than a poorly developed philosophy filled with empty sentimentality.

On the other hand, the BC has retained the substance but by-and-large relinquished the form, replacing it with a Christianity wherein faith and truth can exist without duty and obedience. Substance but no form. It is to this, I think, that many are reacting and subsequently rejecting the BC.

Perhaps I have misread Diane but it seems that she is arguing for substance (which is certainly laudable) without stressing the equally critical form (which is an error as well). Surely Sire was correct when he observed that

if we do not behave as we say we believe, or do not do as we say we know, we neither know nor believe. (in Habits of the Mind, p 102)

Diane is correct in her criticism of the approach and un-anchored practices of the EC, but it does little to fix what is wrong on our side of the street that facilitated the emergence of the EC to begin with. But more on that another day.


2 Cor 1:13