If you do not know what Emergent is, perhaps it is time for you to familiarize yourself with them. Emergent (to be found at emergentvillage.com) is a loose but developing network of small groups (called cohorts) and churches that choose to take alternative approaches to worship, conversation and Christianity in general. Made of mostly evangelical “rejects” (to use their own description), Emergent prides itself in keeping many believers from leaving the faith because of issues of acceptance over theological and personal differences with what is being perceived as mainstream evangelical churches. At Yale we met people from various backgrounds and persuasions; there were conservatives, liberals, Pentecostals, Baptists and Catholics, so many people from many backgrounds are interested in hearing what Emergent has to say. And this is where the movement shines most: their simple approach to conversation and “in the round” style of worship creates a wonderfully conducive atmosphere for worship and dialogue.

Now, you may ask yourself what Preterism has to do with any of this, but maybe that is the wrong question to ask. The answer is: everything and not much! In my recent encounters with emergent folks, I have observed a tremendous openness to the message of Preterism. In essence every single individual involved with the emergent thinking readily recognized the merits of Preterist theology when they encountered it. Some complained that Preterism is “too systematic” for them, but has a great potential. Others like Brian McLaren readily admit that a proper placing of the Parousia makes a stringent social statement regarding many important issues, such as environmentalism, poverty, war and justice. Andrew Perriman, an emergent scholar, wrote what seems to be a sound preteristic book on eschatology. But ultimately, most folks I’ve discussed Preterism with do not see it as a major factor into what Emergent is trying to do. They do not get Preterism, therefore it is highly unlikely any of these people will ever become Preterists. But at the end of the day, is that what our goal as Preterist should be? Should we continue to subscribe to a conversional mentality, or should we instead shift our attention to conversing on whatever common ground we have?

Despite the loose nature of Emergent, I did notice some tendencies of systematizing the “emergent theology.” Apparently there is an “Emergent Theology” volume in the works and it will come out later this year. This is good and ironic at the same time, ironic mostly because emergent folks usually tend to complain about theology being too systematic and want to go back to the first-century and early roots of Christianity when doctrine was indeed emerging and when Christians were able to talk about everything and anything while developing their theology; a good thing because it will give many outsiders an opportunity to reconsider Emergent and grasp what their theology is all about and whether or not the “modern Jesus” offers the solutions so many people are looking for.

Conversional or Conversational?

Without a doubt, there is some thinking that I agree with regarding modern Christianity creating “a Jesus” to their liking, a Jesus that no longer looks like the Jesus of the Scriptures, and to some extent, Emergent seems to be reacting – and rightly so – to the theological manufacturing process of modernism where canned theology is pumped out daily to masses of believers who pass and respectively fail litmus tests applied by their peers. Those passing the tests are embraced, exalted and lauded; those failing are excluded and rejected, and many leave the Christian faith forever. Ultimately, like someone earlier this week said, Emergent is in some way leading the way in saving Jesus from modern Christianity. Is that necessary? Is it needed? In light of Preterist eschatology, is Jesus the person we have been told about for the past one hundred years; the vengeful, angry, retribution-oriented God wearing a blood-soaked robe?

When I look at the Scriptures, I do not see a “conversional Jesus” – rather I see the conversational Jesus attempting to influence people’s thinking through conversation and discussion, by questioning and prompting questions, by listening and being listened to. Jesus did not travel across Israel and asked people to become 21^st Century Christians. Rather he had dinner with them, drank with them and told them to repent of their sins; all done in a clearly conversational way. It appears that Jesus listened to them, which in turn motivated them to listen to him. He even summed up his message for those who have a hard time understanding: love God, love your enemy and love your neighbor as yourself.

So when I see the extremely personal attacks taking place against folks who advocate free-thinking, dialogue and thinking outside the box, I wonder what those accusers would have done with people like Martin Luther. With Jesus?

Christianity or Christianism?

The great thing about Preterism is its highly structured and systematized nature. That is also the worst thing about it. An “ism” is by definition something that is encased in a box, set in concrete, or written in stone. When someone asks me “what is Preterism,” I can point him to the Outline to Preterism document here on this website and after a few minutes, he can understand (mostly) what Preterism is all about. The same goes for other “isms” like Atheism, Theism, etc. Atheism is disbelief in a deity. Clearly defined, never changing, in your face statement. Preterism is the belief that the Parousia of Jesus took place in A.D. 70. Clearly defined, never changing, narrow and in your face.

An “Outline to Preterism” indicates a never-changing attitude about our doctrine and theology. That’s what an “ism” is – something that does not change; something very well defined and outlined. This alone is enough to create two major problems for our movement: 1) prevent the development of Preterist doctrine and any consideration of other doctrinal points (whatever they may be) and 2) cut off any bridges that would allow many outsiders to consider Preterism at all.

When we think of Christianity for example, we do not think of “Christianism” because technically speaking there is no such thing. Perhaps some Christians may like to think so, but that does not make it so. Christianity does not belong to Americans for them to mold it and define it. There is only one qualifier: Christianity is made of people following the teachings of Jesus. Christians in Romania do this by meeting in churches with painted walls, lighting candles before praying and singing their liturgy rather than preaching it. People in India see the story of Jesus as their own story, of someone named Ishu born in a barn, visited by three kings, growing up to perform miracles, heal people, walk on water and teach people how to live better lives. I heard of an Indian boy moving to England to attend school there, where on the first day of school he shared the story of Ishu with the class. To his surprise, the British students told him that this was their story, not his, and the story is about Jesus, not Ishu. He was upset and confused about it because the story of Ishu was his favorite Hindu story.

I was reading that in India it is a lot more common to hear someone ask “What is your practice” rather than “What do you believe?” People there recognize the fact that the practice of your faith is a lot more important than the philosophical underpinning of what your theology is: helping others in suffering, honoring the universal message of Jesus to love your brother and enemy, which goes beyond sectarianism and selfish desires. What do you practice? Who do you love? Why?

African Christians see Jesus as a black savior, ministering to the hungry and sick. Americans see Jesus as a white man with blue eyes leading a social revolution for worldwide democracy and justice. One thing is clear, there is no such thing as Christianism and whenever Preterists try to put Christianity in a box, the box will not hold it. In essence, Preterism has become an American “ism” that seems to be at odds with most other aspects of universal Christianity; an “ism” that is much about eschatology and little about “What is your practice?”

Is it possible at all to overcome the “ism” nature of our movement? How? Do we need to? As we all know very well, there is a handful of Preterists willing to attack and destroy anyone in order to maintain the status quo. Perhaps the solution should be “a new kind of Preterism” as I suggested in my interview with Brian McLaren. A dynamic Preterism, where conversation is encouraged, not condemned, where we can openly speak about our doubts and challenges as Christians, where the “outline to Preterism” is “today’s outline” and where the journey is never-ending, where we wrestle with the Scripture, converse about our differences and hopefully learn from each other.

My yoke is easy

In the Jewish rabbinical culture, a rabbi (teacher) would be an individual one would be honored to follow and obey. Each teacher had his own interpretation of the Torah. Some teacher may say “you may not ride a donkey on a Sabbath” – another may say “on a Sabbath you may not walk by a wheat field and casually grab grains and eat them.” Others may allow the followers to do these things. These unwritten lists of rules were called a rabbi’s yoke.

Rabbi Jesus told his disciples “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” So a Rabbi’s disciples would not only be honored to follow in the Rabbi’s footsteps, but also were willing to do exactly what the Rabbi did, so much so that when the Rabbi would go to the bathroom, the disciples would go in with him to not miss anything the Rabbi would say or do.

In light of the emergent church and thought, we should perhaps reconsider the many regulations put in place over the years by the various post-Christ rabbis. I believe there is a natural human tendency to complicate things if they are too simple. I am sure along the line someone stopped and said, “That can’t be Christ’s yoke…it is too easy...it can’t be that easy!?” But what if it really is that easy? What if Preterism really is not “the end” but just “a beginning” leading us to truly practice the Gospel of Christ, love, share, learn, suffer and better the world, whether the world agrees or disagrees with us? When did philosophical agreement become a prerequisite to Christianity’s active involvement in bettering the world around us?

An emergent danger?

I have seen a few e-mails floating around the Preterist campfire about the extraordinary dangers our dialogue with Emergent creates for the Gospel. “The Gospel is at stake” they say. I have to really chuckle when I hear these kinds of comments from Preterists, because they resonate with what futurists have been saying about Preterism for a few decades now: “Renounce Preterism! The Gospel is at stake! You are all going to hell!” And I also have to wonder what warped definitions of the Gospel these people actually have. If the Gospel of Christ embodies Truth and if the Emergent movement can destroy the Gospel, then we have a major problem on our hands, and I am not sure I want to have anything to do with a God whose message can be destroyed or hindered by a group of “post-modern whackos” as we have been labeled.

You see, these kinds of scare tactics are no different than what we have all experienced when we first encountered Preterist eschatology. We have been excluded from church memberships, some have been fired, ridiculed, associated with Satanic influences and heresy. This is nothing new. What is new is for Preterists to use these very same tactics against fellow Preterists that are not willing to bring with them all the rest of the baggage that comes with futurist theology. It is as if some Preterists have only adjusted the timing of the return of Christ, and left everything else alone.

And when some choose to perhaps question other de facto aspects of the Christian faith, we are suddenly back where we started: hatred, exclusion, creedal Christianity, litmus tests, condemnation to hell, heresy, etc.

The dangers we face as Preterists today do not come from Emergent, from a dialogue with them, or any entity outside of ourselves. Rather the danger comes from a lack of dialogue and a self-isolation caused by the ultra-modern mentality that we are right and everyone else is wrong. This kind of position will only eliminate any possible dialogue and outreach we could hope to create with the outside world.

As I said, at Yale, I have met all kinds of wonderful people. I have met conservatives, liberals, republicans and democrats; Baptists, Pentecostals, Unitarians, Anglicans, etc. At the end of the day we were all able to sit down and listen to each other, worship together, sing and pray together. This is the essence of the Christian faith, to seek God’s peace, understanding and dialogue with those different from us.

A long time ago, Basil of Caesarea wrote down a prayer that is still being used today in Orthodox churches:

“Steer the ship of my life, good Lord, to your quiet harbor, where I can be safe from the storms of sin and conflict. Show me the course I should take. Renew in me the gift of discernment, so that I can always see the right direction in which I should go. And give me the strength and the courage to choose the right course, even when the sea is rough and the waves are high, knowing that through enduring hardship and danger in your name we shall find comfort and peace.”

Fellow Preterist, instead of being so concerned with the minute details of what other people believe, stop and ask yourself and those around you: What is your practice?