a href=”http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/”>Jollyblogger makes an interesting point about the link between classical liberalism and the emerging church movement. One element I think he overlooks, however, is the impact of the missiological concept of contextualization on these developing movements. I suspect an advocate of the emerging church movement would say that the world doesn’t set the “agenda” for the church, but the cultural context of the church is the context within which the church’s agenda is set and carried out.
Just like a missionary to a tribal people will need to translate concepts such as sin, grace and redemption in ways that the those people can understand — often using ideas from old tribal stories — the emerging church, ideally, seeks to translate these concepts in ways that postmodern westerners will understand. This isn’t such a new idea, nor does it have its roots in classical liberalism. In fact, the process of contextualization is evidenced throughout scripture. Compare the very Jewish Gospel of Matthew with the very Hellenistic Gospel of John, for example, or look at Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill.
This isn’t to discount the insight about classical liberalism’s influence on the emerging church movement entirely, however. It’s certainly possible to slide from contextualization to a loss of Christian distinctives. But that’s always been a tension as the gospel is introduced to new cultures; it’s not a reason to abandon the missionary enterprise. I still view the emerging church movement as a mission to postmoderns.