Theology of Emergence in Scripture

Biblical Theology of Emergence

A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture

Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006

INTRODUCTION
A major struggle facing today’s church, and increasingly causing conflict for congregations and denominations alike, is how to deal with the Emerging Church. The Emerging Church is the collection of thoughts and conversations about how the church needs to change in order to reach the postmodern segment of our culture. These changes are in some ways radical and revolutionary for the church standing on the threshold of the future.
As with any change there are those who lead the way through experimentation, reflection and provocation. There are others who will come along more slowly, and still others who will never embrace it. This is not a new situation. This paper will seek to elicit from scripture, examples from which we can see similar changes facing the Christian church today. Through reflection I hope to outline important keys to understanding the Emerging Church.
I believe there is a fifty year period of turbulent emergence that can serve as a biblical backdrop from which we can draw conclusions. This period began immediately prior to Jesus’ birth, and continued passed His death. In this period three emergences occurred, and at each time those who were trying to honor God found themselves on divided sides of the issue. They are listed as follows: 1.) Emergence of the Kingdom, 2.) Emergence of Pentecost, and 3.) Emergence of the Gentile Church.
EMERGENCE OF THE KINGDOM
An indicative point of the Emerging Church is an Incarnational theology. It is a return of sorts to seeing the church as the representative body of Christ on earth; the fulfillment of God’s presence on earth. A look at each of the cited emergences will require an examination of them for similarities with today’s church.
Was there an incarnational element in the emergences of the Kingdom of God? Absolutely! Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Kingdom. He said as much in Mark 1:15, “The time has come,…The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news.”
The revelation of Christ as Messiah was shocking to the religious leadership of His day. Jesus claimed divinity[1], the ability to heal disease and forgive sin[2], and to be the fulfillment of the prophets[3]. Yet He did not fit the mold that the Pharisees had expected. Jesus claimed to be one with the Father, but they had been trained in the law to believe that their God was one[4] not multiple persons (i.e. Father and Son). The Messiah according to the prophets, especially the exilic prophets, spoke of the Lord coming in judgment to distribute the power of God upon those who oppressed Israel[5], and would usher in a new Temple and Jerusalem[6]. They were looking for a military leader. Jesus, however, seemed to judge the Pharisees far more than the Romans. He did not fit their preconceived ideas. Jesus told parables of the kingdom of heaven[7] and when He spoke, the stories were not understandable to those who listened. The parable of the Sower[8], for instance, has been analogized often in our current context, but within the original context Jesus is speaking to an all Jewish audience, and says that the Kingdom will be sown amongst Jews, and some get into the Kingdom and some don’t. This was very different from their perceptions of what the Kingdom coming to earth would look like.
The purpose of this emergence, of course, was the fulfillment of God’s promise. Through Abraham the whole earth would be blessed[9]. But though His methods regarding the law, and the prophets were counter to what was being looked for, it was the fulfillment God had in mind.[10]
The Disciples embraced this emergence while the Pharisees led the Jews to reject it. The most interesting part to me is that the disciples accepted it without really understanding. They still had questions about the parables and struggled to comprehend what Jesus was teaching them. I think in our current society this creates a major rub. Everyone wants answers in modernity. We want answers defining Postmodernity, and its effect on Christianity. We want answers on Ecclesiology, and how the Emerging Churches will affect the church as we know it. An initial key to understanding emergence is that it always raises more questions than answers initially.
Even when Jesus was leading the disciples through the institution of the New Covenant, replacing the covenant with Abraham -- the triumphal entry, the Passion Week events, the last supper, His death and resurrection -- they still didn’t know the answers. They asked, “Lord, are You at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”[11] They knew that something new was emerging, but they still struggled to understand.
EMERGENCE OF PENTECOST
The questions that the disciples asked themselves for years must have surfaced again in their minds as Jesus told them that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit (another person of the Godhead), and that they would be witnesses starting in Jerusalem and moving out to all of the world. This was again different from the understanding of the prophets. They wrote about the Messiah ushering all nations to come to Jerusalem not sending them out.[12] Then to complicate matters, Jesus ascends back to heaven.[13]
The only thing the disciples had to hold onto in this next emergence was the command to wait in Jerusalem. Within ten days the next emergence began. Acts 2 records for us the events of the day of Pentecost. The emergence of Pentecost was another unexpected and unknown emergence. Just fifty days after Christ’s death, while there was probably still political heat surrounding the followers of Christ, they are filled with the Holy Spirit. There is the sound of a rushing wind, cloven tongue of fire rest on each of their heads, and they began speaking in tongues. This was so apparent that people in the street heard them.[14]
Pentecost marked the emergence of the church. The incarnational element was experienced by those who were filled with the Holy Spirit. The response is seen in Acts 2:41-47,
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and good, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The purpose of this emergence is clear in the launch of the church. The church is born and functioning, yet still struggles with its identity. Are these Messianic Jews Christians or still Jews? Do they live under the New Covenant or does some of the Old Covenant still exist for them to live under?
The methodologies of those who emerged were again in conflict. Many of the apostles stayed right in Jerusalem, only to be scattered later thought persecution. Yet Christ told them to go into all the world.[15]
One apostle did leave Jerusalem. Peter had a vision from God and an invitation to Caesarea, and he went.[16] This is where the methodology created the problems in this new Jewish sect. Peter’s vision was of a sheet containing foods that were considered unclean under Jewish law.
The whole idea of extending the gospel to the gentiles was foreign to the new church. It was further revealing God’s plan. The evidence came when Cornelius not only received Christ, but also received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the same evidence that the Jewish church had received, that is speaking in tongues. The apostles weren’t ready for this, and Peter had to defend his actions, because his methods were far removed from the norm.
I think an important key is found here. The methods of Peter were done out of obedience to what God had told him to do. In the emerging church today I feel that nothing less that this model should be accepted. If God shows a ministry a specific call of vision to accomplish His mission, then by all means, they should pursue it. Trying to do something just for the sake of making something emerge will eventually fail anyway.
EMERGENCE OF PAUL AND WORLD MISSION
Following shortly after Peter’s experience with Cornelius the church experienced another emergence. Paul was converted to Christianity and began ministry under the reluctant permission of the other apostles. He made his ministry specifically incarnational by going to the areas of the Roman Empire that had not heard about Christ, and he presented the gospel to them. He became a leader in incarnational methodology stating, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessing.”[17]
His methodology was particularly suspect to the apostles in Jerusalem. The fact that Paul’s methods didn’t require the same acts of consecration as were necessary under the law of the Old Covenant was reprehensible. Paul stood up to them, recalcitrant, demanding that they not impose unnecessary law on gentile believers.
It was not necessary to first convert to Judaism in order to convert to Christianity. The major issue was circumcision. But Paul made his stand saying, “There is not Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”[18]
His purpose was clear, to take the gospel to the world. The missions emphasis in the church today are attributable to Paul who began going to share the gospel wherever he could. And this is the key that most emphasizes the emerging church of today. It is pastors and apostles wanting to further the gospel, to share in its blessing that compels them to venture out of the accepted and normal areas of the church. It drives them to engage their culture with missional integrity.
CONCLUSION
Emerging issues in the church are not anything new. It has been a common part of the church’s history. Persecution, the Gnostic problem, Constantinianism, the Reformation, 20th century Pentecost, and now the postmodern dilemma are all emergences that the church has faced. In every situation there has been a parting of the church. There is always a tension between those holding onto the way it was and those who are shaping what it will be.
The important thing about emergence is that it will always face the church until the return of Christ. In the mean time we’re obligated to deal with each other in the love of Christ as we pursue the mission of the church. We must understand emergence will never be neat. It’s always messy and challenging to sort out. We must discern whether the methods emerging are an act of obedience, or just trendy actions driven by selfish ambitions. The entire church must remain focused on the mission. We must remember that the mission should drive our motivation. We must not allow tradition and comfort to hold us back from a missional pursuit. The Emerging Church is a church trying to find their way to accomplishing the mission.
[1] John 8:58
[2] Luke 5:20; 7:48
[3] Matthew 5:17; Luke 4:18-20; Is. 6:9-10
[4] Deuteronomy 6:4
[5] Micah 5:4-5
[6] Zechariah 6:12
[7] Matthew 13:31-52; 20:1-2
[8] Matthew 13:3-9
[9] Genesis 22:18
[10] Isaiah 6:9-13
[11] Acts 1:6
[12] Zechariah 14:14
[13] Acts 1:9
[14] Acts 2:1-8
[15] Matt 28:19
[16] Acts 10
[17] 1 Cor. 9:22b-23
[18] Col. 3:11