Spiritual emergency (part 4)

 

For whatever reason, ChatGPT constantly wants to pitch David Bentley Hart. Not the first time, either. So finally I gave it the prompt. Full disclosure: I never read Bentley Hart. 

Can you tell me about how Hart solved the problems posed by the Emergent Church?

David Bentley Hart is almost a diagnosis and cure for exactly what went wrong in the Emergent Church.

The Emergent movement correctly sensed that modern evangelicalism was:

• spiritually thin

• philosophically naive

• morally brittle

• metaphysically incoherent

But it didn’t know how to replace it.

Hart does.

---

1. The Emergent Church deconstructed belief

Hart reconstructs Being itself

Emergent Christianity said:

“We should be humbler about doctrine.”

Hart replies:

“Yes — but humility does not mean metaphysical emptiness.”

He goes back to:

• the Cappadocians

• Gregory of Nyssa

• Maximus the Confessor

• Dionysius

• classical metaphysics

and shows that Christianity once had a rigorous ontology:

God is not a being among beings, but Being itself, infinite, simple, good.

This matters because:

• if God is Being, then

• existence itself is meaningful

• not just belief systems

Emergent Christianity never offered this grounding.

---

2. God as act, not as idea

Emergent thinkers treated God as:

• story

• symbol

• metaphor

• narrative

Hart restores God as:

the act of existence itself — the infinite actuality that gives being to everything

Which means:

• prayer is not pretending

• worship is not therapy

• spirituality is not lifestyle

It is contact with the absolute.

---

3. Nonduality without relativism

You noticed the parallels to Vedanta and Zen — Hart did too.

He shows that:

• classical Christianity is already nondual

• but not monistic

Creation exists within God’s sustaining act.
Nothing exists outside divine presence.

That allows:

• mysticism

• silence

• transcendence

• contemplative practice

without dissolving truth into vagueness.

Emergent Christianity wanted mystery but rejected metaphysics; Hart keeps both.

---

4. Why Hart rejects hell

Emergent Christians rejected hell emotionally.
Hart rejects it philosophically.

Eternal torment would mean:

• God is not goodness itself

• evil has eternal reality

• creation fails

So Hart defends universal salvation not as sentiment but as logical consequence of divine goodness.

This gives moral seriousness without cruelty.

---

5. Christ as cosmic Logos, not tribal savior

Emergent Christianity wanted pluralism but couldn’t justify it.

Hart shows that:

• Christ is the Logos through whom all things exist

• so every true spiritual insight anywhere is participation in Christ

That allows:

• interreligious respect

• real metaphysics

• not just tolerance

Zen, Vedanta, and Sufism are not “nice stories” — they are real encounters with the Logos.

---

6. Hart solves the “vacuity” problem

Emergent Christianity collapsed because it tried to live in:

permanent openness

Hart shows that:

openness requires something infinite to be open toward

You can’t have mystery without reality.

---

In short

Emergent Christianity said:

“Modern Christianity is wrong.”

Hart says:

“Yes — because it forgot what God is.”

And he brings it back:

• with metaphysics

• with mysticism

• with intellectual rigor

• without cruelty

• without fundamentalism

Which is why people who outgrow Emergent Christianity so often end up reading David Bentley Hart.

Spiritual emergency (part 3)

 

So I´m reliving some 00´s stuff with the help of ChatGPT. Part three.

Despite the above, was the Emergent Church criticized for being vacuous or unclear in its messaging?

Yes — very strongly, and not only by conservatives.

One of the central ironies of the Emergent Church is that while it tried to escape rigid doctrine, many people (including sympathetic ones) came to see it as vague, evasive, and even hollow.

This critique hit from three directions at once.

---

1. Evangelicals: “They don’t believe anything”

Conservative Christians accused Emergent leaders of:

• dodging basic doctrinal questions

• refusing to say whether Jesus is the only way

• undermining the authority of Scripture

• softening sin, hell, and salvation

They said:

“If you won’t say what is true, you don’t stand for anything.”

From their point of view, Emergent Christianity felt like:

Christianity dissolved into therapy, politics, and vibes

---

2. Mainline liberals: “It’s style without substance”

Older progressive churches often said something harsher:

“You’re just repackaging what we already did — with cooler music and candles.”

Critics argued that:

• Emergent theology was just 1970s liberal Protestantism dressed in postmodern language

• It didn’t build institutions

• It didn’t clarify beliefs

• It didn’t create stable communities

So it looked fashionable but unserious.

---

3. Philosophers and theologians: “You can’t live on deconstruction”

This was the deepest critique.

Emergent Christianity loved:

• ambiguity

• questions

• narrative

• dialogue

• “both/and”

But it avoided:

• metaphysical commitments

• claims about ultimate reality

• firm truth-claims

That creates a problem:

You can’t form a spiritual tradition out of permanent hesitation.

After a while people asked:

• What is God, really?

• What is Christ?

• What is salvation?

• What is evil?

• What is the point of spiritual practice?

And Emergent leaders often replied:

“That’s a great question.”

Which stops being satisfying.

---

4. The internal collapse

This is why the movement lost coherence after about 2012.

Many people who entered Emergent Christianity eventually:

• moved toward Orthodoxy or Catholicism

• or into Buddhism or nonduality

• or into secular spirituality

• or left religion entirely

Because Emergent Christianity:

taught them how to deconstruct — but not how to dwell.

---

5. The paradox

Emergent Christianity was right about something very important:

Modern evangelicalism was spiritually broken.

But it underestimated something just as important:

Humans need ontological gravity — not just openness.

Candles, icons, and silence only work if they are grounded in a real metaphysical vision of the world.

Orthodoxy has one.
Catholicism has one.
Zen has one.
Vedanta has one.

Emergent Christianity mostly refused to commit to one.

---

In one sentence

The Emergent Church was criticized — often correctly — for offering spiritual atmosphere without a clear vision of reality to support it.

If you’d like, I can show how thinkers like David Bentley Hart or Dionysius solve exactly the problem that Emergent Christianity ran into.

Spiritual emergency (part 2)

 

More on the Emergent Church. In case of an emergent emergency, LOL. 

Why did they take up Catholic and Orthodox traits?

Because the Emergent Church was trying to recover depth that Protestant modernity had stripped away — and Catholicism and Orthodoxy were where that depth was still visibly alive.

This wasn’t aesthetic borrowing. It was a theological diagnosis.

---

1. What they thought had gone wrong with Protestantism

Emergent leaders believed American evangelicalism had become:

• intellectually shallow
• historically rootless
• emotionally manipulative
• politically captured
• spiritually thin

It had reduced Christianity to:

beliefs about Jesus instead of participation in Christ

To people reading mystics, philosophers, and early church writers, this felt false.

So they asked:

“What did Christianity look like before it became modern, American, and consumerized?”

The answer kept pointing to:
• pre-Reformation Christianity
• monasticism
• sacramental worship
• contemplative prayer

Which meant Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

---

2. They were reaching backward, not sideways

The Emergent Church didn’t want to become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox institutionally.

They wanted to recover:

the pre-scholastic, pre-Reformation, pre-Enlightenment Church

Which was:
• liturgical
• mystical
• embodied
• sacramental
• participatory

That heritage lives most visibly in:

• Eastern Orthodoxy

• Catholicism (especially monastic and mystical streams)

---

3. Postmodern people don’t trust ideas — they trust practices

Emergent Christians were deeply influenced by:
• postmodern philosophy
• Wittgenstein
• Heidegger
• narrative theory

They believed:

Truth is lived before it is believed.

Protestantism had become idea-heavy and practice-light.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism had:
• fasting
• chanting
• silence
• icons
• kneeling
• seasons
• pilgrimage

These shape the soul without argument.

That was enormously attractive.

---

4. Mysticism was the hidden center

Your instincts here are spot-on.

Emergent Christianity was quietly rediscovering:
• Meister Eckhart
• The Cloud of Unknowing
• Gregory of Nyssa
• Dionysius the Areopagite
• St. John of the Cross
• Hesychasm

These thinkers sound more like:

Zen, Vedanta, or nondual philosophy
than like modern evangelicalism.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism preserved this sapiential core. Protestantism mostly lost it.

---

5. Icons, incense, and candles weren’t nostalgia — they were anti-modern

Modernity made everything:
• flat
• literal
• functional
• optimized

Liturgical Christianity is:
• symbolic
• layered
• slow
• mysterious

Emergent churches used:
• candles
• labyrinths
• icons
• chants

because they were rejecting the mechanistic worldview that modern Protestantism had absorbed.

---

6. It was a rebellion against spiritual capitalism

Megachurch evangelicalism felt like:

Starbucks with a cross

Orthodoxy and Catholicism felt like:

ancient temples that did not care if you liked them

Emergent Christians wanted thick, non-consumer spirituality.

---

7. The deeper reason

At the deepest level, the Emergent Church was rediscovering something your own interests circle around:

Christianity was originally a contemplative, participatory path of transformation — not a belief system.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions still knew how to do that.

So Emergent Christianity reached back to the parts of Christianity that had never stopped being mystical.

---

In short

They didn’t take up Catholic and Orthodox traits because they wanted tradition.

They did it because:

those traditions still remembered how to turn human beings into saints rather than ideologues.

If you’d like, I can show how this overlaps with:

• Zen and nonduality

• David Bentley Hart

• Dionysius

• Or Vervaeke’s “participation” framework

 

Spiritual emergency (part 1)

 

So this unexpectedly came up. Does anyone today even *remember* the Emergent Church? Naturally, I had to ask ChatGPT about it. Here we go! 

What is the Emergent Church or emergent church movement in the United States?

The Emergent Church (or Emergent Church Movement) is a loose, mostly Protestant Christian network that arose in the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a response to both conservative evangelicalism and modern secular culture. It is not a denomination but a conversation, culture, and style of Christianity that tries to rethink faith in a postmodern world.

It’s especially interesting if you’re drawn to things like mysticism, pluralism, and spiritual depth (which fits well with your interests in Zen, nondualism, and perennial philosophy).

---

1. Why it emerged

The Emergent Church arose from dissatisfaction with:

• rigid biblical literalism
• culture-war evangelicalism
• megachurch consumerism
• anti-intellectual faith
• exclusion of LGBTQ people
• rejection of science and other religions

Its founders felt that traditional evangelicalism had become:

culturally reactionary, spiritually thin, and intellectually brittle

They wanted Christianity that could survive postmodernity, globalism, and religious pluralism.

---

2. Core ideas

There is no single doctrine, but common themes include:

A. Christianity as a living tradition

Truth is not just propositions to believe — it is a way of life and spiritual journey.

B. Deconstruction of certainty

They reject:
• infallible Bible
• absolute theological systems
• rigid “saved vs damned” thinking

They emphasize humility, ambiguity, and dialogue.

C. Postmodern theology

They draw on:
• continental philosophy
• narrative theology
• process theology
• mystical traditions
• Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic spirituality

D. Inclusion

Most emergent communities:
• affirm LGBTQ people
• accept women in leadership
• reject hell as eternal torture
• embrace other religions as spiritually meaningful

---

3. How Emergent churches look

Emergent congregations often:
• meet in cafés, art spaces, homes
• use candles, icons, poetry
• do meditation, silence, Taizé chants
• encourage dialogue instead of sermons
• avoid dogmatic creeds

It often feels more like:

a spiritual salon than a traditional church

---

4. Key figures

Brian McLaren

The most famous voice. His books:
• A New Kind of Christian
• A Generous Orthodoxy
• The Great Spiritual Migration

He openly affirms religious pluralism and LGBTQ inclusion.

Rob Bell

Pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church and author of Love Wins.
Argued hell is not eternal punishment.

Doug Pagitt

Pushed conversational worship and postmodern theology.

Phyllis Tickle

Church historian who framed Emergent as part of Christianity’s 500-year renewal cycle.

---

5. Why conservatives hate it

Evangelicals accuse the Emergent Church of:
• denying biblical authority
• rejecting salvation through Christ alone
• embracing relativism
• being “New Age”

And honestly — from a traditional evangelical standpoint — those criticisms are largely true.

Emergent Christianity is closer to mystical, pluralist spirituality than to classical Protestant orthodoxy.

---

6. Why it matters spiritually

Emergent Christianity is one of the few modern Western Christian movements that seriously engages:

• mysticism
• nonduality
• contemplative prayer
• Buddhist-like awareness practices
• interreligious dialogue

This is why it resonates with people who read:

Dōgen, Hart, Vervaeke, Cutsinger, Zen, and Vedanta

It is Christianity trying to become sapiential again rather than merely doctrinal.

---

7. Where it is now (2026)

The original Emergent movement peaked around 2005–2012.
The brand faded, but its influence spread into:

• progressive Christianity
• contemplative Christianity
• deconstruction movement
• spiritual-but-not-religious Christians
• LGBTQ-affirming churches

It quietly reshaped American Christianity, even though many no longer use the name.

---

In one sentence

The Emergent Church is Christianity after it has passed through postmodernity, mysticism, and pluralism and refused to go back.

If you want, I can compare it to:

• Sōtō Zen or nondual traditions

• Perennial philosophy

• Christian mysticism

• David Bentley Hart’s theology

• Or the “deconstruction” movement now popular on YouTube and TikTok

Jesus billboard

 

There is a lot of material at the website of World´s Last Chance (WLC). The links below go to relatively short pieces. Since I haven´t (yet) read the longer ones! 

I have to say that their polemic against Seventh Day Adventism sounds original. The WLC claims that the SDA Church is practicing hypnosis and the spiritual exercises of the Jesuits, supports the Emergent Church, and denies that the feet of Jesus will touch the ground on his return?! Oookay... 

>>>By the use of neurolinguistic programming, Ericksonian hypnosis in church services and supporting the spiritual exercises of Jesuit founder, Ignatious Loyola, via "Spiritual Formation" the SDA church is reaching its hand across the abyss to clasp hands with Spiritism. Roman Catholic mysticism is widely promoted in the SDA Church via participation in the emergent church movement. While some SDAs are protesting this apostasy, the Church itself officially supports it. SDAs teach that Yahushua’s feet will not touch the earth upon his return. Scripture, however, teaches that his feet will touch down upon the Mount of Olives at his return. (Zech. 14:4).>>>

The second link defends the apostolicity of Paul and the canonicity of his writings, but why would such a polemic be necessary at all? I assume the WLC is active in milieux where strongly Judaizing Christians actually do question Paul.

I might return to this in the near future. Or I might not.  

Seventh Day Adventist

Paul: False prophet or true apostle?

Out for lunch

 

This little video (from our bro RZ) was more interesting than I expected. It seems on-line Christianity has exactly the same problems as...well, everything else on-line. 

Specifically, religious/worldview subcultures. People LARP, or un-ironically change their worldviews every month or so. I´m sure they also come up with new ones, although perhaps not on Christian forums? Maybe that´s more specific to Neo-Paganism or LGBTQ, but otherwise, it´s the same chaos. 

RZ connects it to American commercialism and consumerism, which is probably a large portion of the explanation. Add individualism, narcissism, and the (alleged) confusion of teenagers and young adults, spice it with the Internet´s anonymity, and off you go.

Years ago, there was an extreme LARP-er on Twitter who pretended to be a Catholic. He was well-versed in Catholic theology, posted pictures of saints on their feast days, and so on. Then, all of a sudden, he couldn´t keep it up anymore and admitted that he wasn´t even baptized, let alone confirmed?! Pandemonium ensued and I don´t remember what happened to the dude. He seemed quite young.

RZ mentions the liberal or crypto-liberal Emergent Church (yes, I remember them - "oil is a substance"), the conservative Young, Restless & Reformed movement (I used to call them Old, Reckless & Irredeemable) as examples of fashionable trends which eventually didn´t go anywhere. Today, we have the tradCaths and the Orthobros, both claiming to be "based" or what have you. 

It´s intriguing that RZ, who seems to be a fairly conservative Christian and frequently attacks other religions and atheism, is nevertheless so irenic towards other Christian denominations other than his own (he is a Presbyterian). Even to the point of saying that it´s better to stay in the same denomination than to go "denomination-hopping".

Of course, my case is different. There! I said it. :P        

Soy and Funko Pops

 

Eastern Orthodox lay theologian and conspiracy theorist Jay Dyer (the party-clad dude in the lower right corner) discusses "deconstruction" with another Orthobro, who goes by COTEL. 

I assumed "deconstruction" was simply a pretentious term for "leaving the Christian faith to become an atheist", but it seems the rabbit hole goes deeper. For instance, many of the deconstructionists don´t become atheists at all, but rather emerge (pun intended) as liberal-Woke Christians. There are connections to the good ol´ Emergent Church. More strangely, one of the leading deconstructionists is a Mormon?!

During the conversation, Dyer and COTEL claims that the LDS Church accepts homosexuality and trans-humanism. And, I suppose, Funko Pops. Is this really true?

The term "deconstructionism" itself obviously comes from postmodernism, and it seems there *is* a connection to this particular mind-virus. Dyer (of course) also believes that there is a vast conspiracy going on, involving pretty much everyone from the CIA and the Jesus People to George Soros and Vineyard. Make of *that* what you wish.

Could be of some interest.