toward establishing the boundaries of orthodoxy for the emerging church

Dan Kimball writes:

"the "stereotype" which emphatically stated that emerging churches are rejecting historical doctrines and that most don't teach doctrines isn't a valid belief"

and he links to several churches that have doctrinal statements on their website in his post.

Dan's post makes me think that to gain a fuller understanding of actual on-the-ground emerging church theology, it would be helpful to do an around-the-room of as many specific emerging churches as possible to see what they have in their belief statements.

I thought it was an interesting coincidence that Dan posted this today as just last night I decided to start building out a faithmaps section on Creeds and Doctrinal Statements. Maybe I'll build out a section on emerging church statements of faith.

While recognizing the limits of doctrinal statements in transpropositional terms, it seems to me that it would be helpful to establish some doctrinal parameters beyond which we emergers cannot definitively go and still be called Christian. This boundary would extend beyond mere theism but would not extend as far as a thoroughgoing relativism. These boundaries would encompass non-negotiables, but would leave some theological space open for continued learning.

I'll just cut and paste a section from Are there Emerging Church Shibboleths?:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While surely agreeing that there are theological non-negotiables (see, for example, 2 Timothy 1:13,14 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15), even so Reformed and conservative a leading light as the great exegete John Murray once commented,

"However epochal have been the advances made at certain periods and however great the contributions of particular men we may not suppose that theological construction ever reaches definitive finality. There is the danger of a stagnant traditionalism and we must be alert to this danger, on the one hand, as to that of discarding our historical moorings, on the other."

Murray continues, "When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.... A theology that does not build on the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history. A theology that relies on the past evades the demands of the present"

(emphasis mine, from his article "Systematic Theology" - see Looking Beyond the Facade of Modernity, Part 2).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to balance things out, perhaps we also need to develop minimal standards for orthopraxy, incorporating social justice concerns and personal spiritual formation practices (broad categories).

I fully realize that this is a controversial proposal and that there is no emerging church body representing all emergers that could make such a decision! I also realize that for some even talking this way is counter-cultural to their emerging church ethos.

But perhaps there is some statement to which interested emergers could subscribe that would provide them protection from being lumped in with theological excesses sometimes associated with some emerging church folks.

What do you think?