Some people have argued that historical theology has little relevance to postmoderns, therefore the church must reflect the current culture to reach them. William Henard contends that historical theology is still relevant, using Jonathan Edwards as an example. For one, though Edwards did not face every manifestation of sin present today, he did encounter the same basic sins. Second, many of today’s youth and leaders are drawn to the Reformers, as evidenced in Colin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed. Since sinners now seem to be in the hands of the Emergent church, Edwards must join the conversation.

Though no simple definition for Emergent exists, they do have a “consistent model of inconsistency.” Henard makes use of Ed Setzer’s tri-fold definition of Emergent: relevants, reconstructionists and revisionists. His focus is primarily on the revisionists, though he recognizes not everyone necessarily fits into one group or another.

There are several areas where Edwards would affirm the Emergent church. For innovation, Edwards would appreciate the Emergents’s use of music to help inspire people’s relationship with God through experiencing his presence. Edwards was one of the first in his day to make use of hymns as he believed it connects beauty and excellence with our understanding of God.

Edwards saw the value of aiding itinerant preachers in the midst of the revival occurring during his time. Though he warned George Whitefield about emotional impulses, he allowed Whitefield to preach four times at his church and let him stay at his house. Many pastors at the time were uncomfortable with such preachers, but Edwards defended them. Thus Edwards would be in favor of unusual methods of evangelism as long as the Gospel is in tact.

Breaking from typical Protestant hermeneutics, Edwards argued for a spiritual sense of Scripture. He believed that Christians are occupied by the Holy Spirit and therefore spiritual understanding of the Scriptures develops as a product of God’s grace apart from having a simply rational understanding. Thus, Edwards would affirm the desire of Emergents to partake in experiential praise.

One of the reasons Emergents are drawn to Jesus is his narrative preaching style. Edwards also often used illustrations relevant to people’s every day lives for the sake of their understanding. When his preaching changed contexts, he adapted from reading a written manuscript to using an outline that allowed for more extemporaneous preaching.

Edwards would also affirm the missional approach to cultural engagement. Noting the specific needs of youth in his area, Edwards began a Bible study just for the youth- an uncommon practice in his day. He used whatever common ground available between him and non-believers as opportunities to teach the gospel, including experiences of death and suicide.

There are, of course, a number of areas where Edwards would not agree with the Emergent church. Edwards held to the traditional Protestant view of Scripture: that it is inspired by God as His revelation and therefore it is completely accurate. He would caution those in the Emergent church who put the authority of a conversing community above the authority of Scripture. He would condemn Brian McLaren’s suggestions that the Bible has evolved over time and does not hold all the answers.

Edwards’ high view of theology is apparent throughout his sermons and writings and he understood it as the basis for Christian living and our understanding of culture. Some in the Emergent church seem to believe there can be right behavior without right beliefs and that culture should interpret theology. Edwards would stand against them and argue for the centrality of theology.

Some in the Emergent church have shifted from a proclamation style of preaching to one of conversation and dialogue. Though Edwards would agree with much of their narrative approach, he would contend for the necessity of proclaiming the truth as the central element of worship.

Henard claims that the Emergent emphasis on conversation in evangelism is rooted in a fear of confrontation. There appears to be a willingness to let people find their way into the community without a clear commitment to the truth of the gospel. Edwards believed that conversation happened at once and that there are several steps in the process. He regularly invited people to a salvation offered by Christ, recognizing that a decision must be made.

Finally, Edwards held that character is a mark that distinguishes Christians from the world around them. He argued against the notion that Christians should become a part of culture in order to be relevant. He would be critical of those who appear to be influenced by the world rather than having an influence on the world.

1. Living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.

McLaren suggests that what people believe is of little importance and likely not relevant to our salvation. What is important is right action as modeled by Jesus. McLaren believes that some people (conservatives) use John 14:6 (“I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me”) to mean that Jesus stands in the way of those desiring truth and life. According to McLaren, what Jesus really meant to say is that he is the way to live.

The liberals of Machen’s day saw doctrine as divisive and instead emphasized ethics. Machen replied that Christ is not merely an “example of faith” but is “primarily the object of faith.” He argued that the Christian faith is not faith like Jesus but in Jesus. He believed we should look not to “the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus” as the emphasis of our faith.

2. People are basically good and free from original sin.

McLaren is not clear about his belief on this subject, but he wrote the foreword to Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity and endorsed Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing, both of which deny original sin. When asked in a radio interview if he believes salvation is by grace through faith alone, McLaren answered yes, “we simply accept our acceptance by our creator.” Lacking from his response is the idea that we need a redeemer, and he sounds as though he believes salvation is an “opt-out plan” rather than an “opt-in plan.”

Machen wrote, “According to modern liberal, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin.” He argued that the teaching the truth about sin is necessary to teaching the gospel. “Without the consciousness of sin, the whole gospel will seem to be an idle tale.”

3. Objection to Penal Substitution

McLaren denies the penal part of substitution. He said, “Having an innocent person die for guilty people did not seem to solve the ‘injustice’ of forgiveness—it only seemed to add to the injustice.”

The liberals of Machen’s day held the same belief, insisting that a loving God would forgive without penalty. Machen saw that their view resulted from a light view of sin. He also clarified that God did not punish someone else for our sin, but that he takes it on himself and becomes our sacrifice.

4. Unite Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God

McLaren claims that “the thrust of Jesus’ message is about inclusion—shocking, scandalous inclusion.” He continued, “To be truly inclusive, the kingdom must exclude exclusive people.” He suggests that Christianity was not created by Jesus to be exclusive based on belief.

Machen affirmed the brotherhood of man, but also pointed out that our brotherhood as Christians is far more intimate and he reserved the term brother for those who are redeemed.

5. Inclusivism: extends salvation to include those who have not believed in Christ.

McLaren “suspects” that a person does not need to call themselves a Christian to follow Jesus. He suggests that Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus do not need to leave their religions to enter the kingdom.

Machen replied to the liberals that taught this that the Christian gospel demands exclusive devotion to Christ. “Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but it was only through Christ.”

6. Focus on this life rather than the afterlife

McLaren believes that preoccupation with hell tempts us to devalue and trivialize life before death. He’s concerned that we are so focused on avoiding hell that God’s will on earth is forgotten.

Machen saw this view as rooted in the over-emphasis on applied Christian ethics. He saw the importance of doing God’s will today, but also understood that our ethic fits within a larger Christian framework of God’s dealings with humanity.

Conclusion

            McLaren does differ from the liberalism of Machen’s day. He does not deny the miraculous or supernatural. So in contrast to them, he affirms the existence of God, diety of Jesus and historicity of the resurrection. But like them he makes ethics more important than doctrine and reason more important than revelation.