A Critique of Emergent Theologies

Abstract

This article is an analysis and critique of emergent theologies, focusing on areas of Christology and pneumatology. An increasing number of Christian theologians are integrating (strong) emergence theory into their work. I argue that, despite the range of theological commitments and methodological approaches represented by these scholars, each faces similar problematic tendencies when their Christian doctrines are combined with (strong) emergence theory. It is concluded that the basic logic of emergence theory, whereby matter is seen to precede mind, makes it difficult for emergent theologies to offer an account of salvation, avoid significant issues regarding God's involvement with evil, and maintain divine transcendence. It is concluded, therefore, that Christian theology should look elsewhere for a complementary metaphysical framework with which to bridge scientific and theological discourse.

Making Sense of Emergence: A Critical Engagement With Leidenhag, Leidenhag, and Yong

“…Leidenhag and Leidenhag also issue concerns over Yong's proposal that ontological realities—such as demonic, angelic, and ancestral entities—may arise, yet exist independently of the lower level substrates from which they emerge. It should be noted, however, that elsewhere Joanna Leidenhag writes, “Although it seems acceptable to claim that created spirits (human souls, angelic, demonic, or ancestral spirits) are emergent phenomena, as Amos Yong suggests, it does not seem acceptable to place the Divine Spirit as a created result of the emergent process” (Leidenhag , 785). In consideration of this quote, Joanna Leidenhag's position, at least, on emergence and emergent realities is unclear.…”

“…In what follows, we plan to provide a summary of emergence and address each of these criticisms set forth by Leidenhag and Leidenhag, given that emergence has been an important interlocutor for both Yong and the authors of this current essay. While we are aware of two other articles in this area, one by Mikael Leidenhag () and one by Joanna Leidenhag (), we tend to focus upon the metaphysical consistency of an emergence theology herein, but the latter part of this essay begins to address some of Leidenhag's () theological concerns. Notably, in her article, Joanna Leidenhag argues that emergence faces several theological problems, particularly in the area of Christology and Pneumatology.…”

FOCUS AND FLEXIBILITY: ZYGON'S PROFILE AND PRACTICE

“…And a particular line within a tradition can be criticized (e.g., Bigliardi ). In this issue, we have a discussion on the question whether “emergence” can be used in Pentecostal theology, as two students of Amos Yong, David Bradnick and Bradford McCall, challenge earlier articles by Mikael Leidenhag (), Johanna Leidenhag (), and Mikael Leidenhag and Joanna Leidenhag jointly (2015) with a response by Leidenhag and Leidenhag on their understanding of emergence and the limitations of its theological potential. The review essay by Stefaan Blancke, on the way Islam is changing in our time, triggered by a book by Taner Edis, is another example of engagement with a tradition.…”

The Unsuitability of Emergence Theory for Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Bradnick and McCall

“…In our article, “Science and Spirit: A Critical Examination of Amos Yong's Pneumatological Theology of Emergence,” we applauded Yong as a “Pentecostal thinker who seeks to rationally examine the distinctively experiential elements of the Pentecostal worldview” (Leidenhag and Leidenhag , 435). However, throughout that article, we argued that emergence theory is an unsuitable ontology for Yong's Pentecostal project and for Christian theology in general (see also Leidenhag ; Joanna Leidenhag ; Mikael Leidenhag ). The main thrust of our critique was that emergence theory does not offer the kind of metaphysical resources that Yong seems to think it does.…”