Defining the "emerging church" (ec) is difficult, and I will not attempt that here. But a few people from Grace have asked for some clarity. The ec is essentially a discussion about how to be the church and carry on the work of the church in the postmodern context. Those involved/sympathetic to the discussion generally agree that many of the forms the Gospel took in the modern era will be less useful in the postmodern era. This is not a problem with the Gospel, or truth, but with the way these things have been packaged. The ec tends to be made up of younger Christians or younger churches that have found many problems in our evangelical churches, and are seeking solutions to those problems. It can be fairly said to be a reaction (sometimes over-reaction) to weaknesses in evangelical and fundamentalist forms of Christianity. I think we all can agree weaknesses abound.
Since many are writing, blogging and commenting on this and in the process making some errors in their assessment of the ec, let me state a few things plainly.
1. The ec is not a dismissal of everything modern, nor is it the belief that postmodernity is the answer to the church’s problems. In fact, the ec sees that modernity has blessed us in many ways, and postmodernity has created new problems to be solved. But here’s the issue – many of these problems are not addressed by the modern form of Christianity.
2. The ec is not about worship style, goatees or candles in worship. It is a theological discussion. It is not "liberal," "conservative," "Calvinistic," or "Arminian," but you can find people from each of those perspectives in the discussion.
3. It is not a revolt against truth (not even propositional truth), but it does see truth as something bigger than mere propositions and values the narrative expression of the Christian faith (most of our Bible was given to us in narrative form).
Personally, I don’t care for the label. It means little to me. But the conversation means a lot. The issues are important. Am I a part of the conversation? Absolutely. For the record, I do not think the ec is revival, nor do I think it is a threat to the Gospel. But like the Reformation, and the revivals that swept across nations in previous centuries and changed the church, the ec finds itself largely misunderstood, unfairly criticized and hostilely opposed by some Christians. Yes, there are pastors and authors in the ec whose theology is dangerous in places, but even they have a lot to offer in our discussion. There are also many pastors and authors with great theology also contributing to the ec. You can find some of them at our book table.
How should we think about it? I think we can join the conversation, do some listening, some talking, and a lot of rethinking where necessary. Confessionally my theology is the same, though as I continue to grow there is more to it. Pastor Steve has a thoughtful post on this topic and has included some helpful links. Check it out at Emergent and the Conversation.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 18 comments }
>>”Confessionally my theology is the same, though as I continue to grow there is more to it. “<<
Joe, after reading that “clarity is often overrated” I still must ask, “what do you mean by this?”
(And please remember that by ec standards, I’m old, part of the problem, in need of being enlightened, etc.)
Joe, there are scathing reviews on this stuff — and even the ones supporting it are difficult to follow and vague. What’s so wrong about being clear? Generations have spent volumes on making sure that what they were trying to say was clear. Jesus spoke in parables, true, but they were meant to HIDE the truth from those who “couldn’t hear” — he later went on to explain them CLEARLY to his disciples. PLEASE be clear. I have a million other things to do than try to figure out what these guys are thinking/saying… just say it!
The point of this post was to explain the basic nature of the ec. This is as good as I can do in that sense. Those involved are not avoiding clarity, but do have a hard time summarizing the conversation. Ask those involved about a specific issue and opinions abound. There are some in the discussion who do avoid clarity on certain issues (McLaren for example), and while I wish they would be clear, they seem to avoid it to force people to consider what they ARE saying, not what they aren’t. But I am all for clarity, especially when the Bible speaks to an issue (extent of atonement, homosexuality, etc.)
If you are wondering about specific ideas/theologies that would take a long time. Much of it is reflected in traditional reformed thought – I was surprised how much of what was said/criticisms of the church are shared by reformed thinkers (one example, the emphasis on the story of redemption in preaching over 5 things you need to know to improve your life). Some of it is a matter of renewed emphasis. For example, those in the ec emphasize a more communal understanding of salvation and the Christian life. The modern church has boiled it down to a hyper-individualistic soteriology (Jesus-and-me-ism). But Jesus saves us to be a part of a community. I’ve touched on this in recent preaching. The individual aspect of salvation is important, but not everything. The ec also emphasizes missional work from local churches in our communities as the natural outgrowth of the Gospel, whereas many of our churches tend to rely on the CP to do the work for us.
The conversation is very broad and new and therefore hard to nail down. I think guys like Wislon and Mohler are having a hard time wth it for the wrong reasons. See my post on A Generous Orthodoxy
http://www.joethorn.com/wog/2005/02/brian_mclarens_.html
It tends to be feared by those who 1) do not understand it, or 2) do not want to enagage in discussion, or 3) want to treat the conversation as if it were monolithic.
For now, it’s a good conversation that is seeking a clear identity. In the end the whole thing can turn sour, but it may turn out to be something great. For me, it’s a sharpening tool forcing me to remain true to Scripture and keep Jesus at the center.
We should be concerned about what some of the ec guys are saying, but we should also be excited about many of their points and thankful for many of their criticisms.
I’ve just recently joined the conversation so to speak after listening to different voices – thanks for helping clarify some of it for me! It’s good to see that doctrine still matters, but the discussion of how it needs to be lived out is critical as well – it no longer works to be told what/how/when/etc from “on high”
I guess I have two big questions, then, for the conversation.
1. If this is truly of God, where is the scripture? (in looking at websites both pro and con, it is extremely difficult to find any references to support this “position” — in fact, it’s just plain difficult to find “a position”. I’ve found a lot of criticizing of the perceived problems rather than suggested solutions, but that’s another issue.) Since God decided to use the written word and his son, the Word, to reveal himself to us, it seems critical that any movement (or conversation) that claims to be truly Christian would have deep roots in it. Is this more an avoidance of all things “churchy” or are there real things to sink your teeth into?
2. If this is truly of God, why are the old guys whom we’ve trusted a great deal in many other areas suddenly labeled as “afraid to engage in the conversation” because they disagree? I don’t recall the likes of Douglas Wilson, et. al. ever being afraid to take on a real debate.
The problem I’m having with this, Joe, (and perhaps it’s the same for others?) is that this fuzziness breeds suspicion rather than conviction. When people are in their 20′s and 30′s (especially if they’re intellectual) it’s common to play the heady game of “figure me out while I use big words that I don’t think you know”. I played it, too. It’s an ok game, I guess, as long as you don’t really expect people to figure you out. I does get old, though — usually around the same time you start to yourself! You find it’s not worth having to explain yourself over and over again when you could have said it plainly in the first place.
Words, it seems, and the uses of words, are exceedingly important to God. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no” seems to have a lot of weight on this in particular. Perhaps my “old fashioned” thinking will be easily dismissed by those savvy and hip and in the know. But if they can’t communicate what they’re thinking or believing or standing on or not standing on — how in the world are they going to communicate the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ????? I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m not a dough-head, either, and I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say!
I’m all for having a conversation about the weaknesses and faults of “the church” or even “our church”. I am not one to hold onto tradition for the sake of it’s familiarity or comfort. Nor am I one to throw out the new simply because “we haven’t done it that way before”. But I would have to ask anyone I’m conversing with to not play games with me, especially where Truth is concerned — it’s too important. Say what you mean. I might hate what you’ve said, but at least then we can have meaningful dialog about what you really mean. Otherwise, we’re both skirting around what I think I heard you say you thought I meant to say you thought, etc. etc.
I’m not sold. In fact, I’m suspicious at best. I’ll keep reading for a while, but if the boundaries and definitions don’t get formed at some point, I find it strangely familiar to other, harmful things that have crept into the church in the name of “enlightenment”.
Just my initial, but very frustrated thoughts.
Laurie
Laurie, I just wanted to put McLaren’s phrase about clarity being SOMETIMES overrated into its context from the book:
“A warning: as in most of my other books, there are placed here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.”
There’s the whole paragraph, for what it’s worth. You may not agree with his approach. I wouldn’t necessarily agree everyone in the emerging church does either, although I have to say that I, for one, don’t necessarily hold it against it him.
By the way, I’m not so sure Jesus explained “clearly” the way you are saying he did. I think we still have trouble understanding his parables.
I wonder if the perceived fuzziness comes form people trying to make the “conversation” into something that it’s not. By the way, Joe, I liked you thoughts about what the EC is and is not.
As to the question about scripture, I think emerging types tend to throw around scripture a lot less. That doesn’t mean they don’t read it. That doesn’t mean they don’t spend time reflecting on it and living it out. Some emerging churches are known for reading long portions of scripture. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they spend more time in the Old Testament than a lot of evangelical churches do.
Steve’s post, referenced in Joe’s comment above is a gem. The important thing seems to be that the conversation is happening, that there is an examination of how Christ is being taught and discussion of how to spread the Gospel to a society that seems to be heading toward greater and greater apathy. It seems, at least in American society, that God is increasingly becoming the enemy. Part of that is because for some, God always will be the enemy, but part of that is the result of how we, the Church, illustrate God to one another and to those outside of the Church. Well-defined terms & platforms or not, shouldn’t we always engage in this kind of conversation and seek ways to better represent Christ? It’s not necessary to abandon tradition, but maybe it is necessary to explore whether or not we hang onto tradition for tradition’s sake. Conversation is good.
Laurie,
I agree with your desire to evaluate what people are saying by Scripture, so stick with that. I have been doing the same as I read and discuss with others. Let me respond to some of your comments:
1. Most of those I have read in the ec highly value Scripture. One well known emergent guy, Andrew, recently posted on this. It’s a bit hard to read (the format is a little messed up) but it’s worth it. read his post here. McLaren’s book is not written as an exposition of Scripture, but I would like to see a greater use of it there. Despite this, much of what he is arguing for is Biblical. Some of it is way off. But if you listen to the sermons and read some of the books being written by the guys I like, you’ll see a high value of Scripture. Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Charlie Peacock, and others if you are interested. It would be a good idea for me to provide people interested in the ec conversation with an introductory reading list of the good guys.
2. No one would label Wilson as afraid to engage the conversation, that is not his problem. His problem is that he is attempting to reduce the ec to one thing, or one author, not seeing the diversity. There are problems in the ec – just as there are in the SBC or PCA – but we would do well to understand the different streams of thought within and not view it so monolithically.
I think many of the men I love and respect are struggling with the ec because of this and also because many of them perceive the modern forms of Christianity as THE form it must take. For example: chatechesis. Not a Biblical model, but a good one. A modern one. One that we use in our home. Is this the only way to teach our children? Of course not. I’m sure you get my point. The desire to hold on to the truth sometimes warps into a death grip on the packagaing of truth.
3. I share your frustration concerning those who do not want to take a stand on issues (some of McLaren). But consider Steve’s words about the whole thing. Lengthy quote:
Everyone keeps throwing their hands in the air over emergent because we evangelicals are taught to look at something, shrink it down to it’s essence, find the glaring problems, and then speak out against the problems. Emergent is a conversation that hasn’t gelled yet, so it’s near impossible to shrink it down, put it under the microscope, and write a paper criticizing it. It includes Catholics, universalists, Calvinists, and all sorts.
It’s so hard for people to see that it doesn’t have to be something concrete yet, and that’s okay for now.
My take (I could be wrong): it will gel at some point and become a movement. Then it will splinter into different pieces according to more traditional divisions. But the changes it will bring to traditional structures will be crucial, which is why I think the conversation is so important now.
Why not let it be diverse for now and when the rubber hits the road let us go the ways we feel are most consistent with God’s revelation?
(from http://www.stevekmccoy.com)
4. The ec is just one place where dialogue is happening. Some of it is great, and some of it is awful. Most of the people I know who have taken the time to read the books and listen to some of these pastors come away saying, “There’s some good stuff there we may be missing, and there is some stuff in there we need to avoid.”
5. Laurie, no one in the ec would view someone as a part of the problem based on age/generation. Though most in the ec are under 40, many from previous generations find value in the discussion as well.
6. Spending time reading th ec stuff may not prove that valuable to you or your family in part because whether you know it or not, you already have many common ideas about Christianity and the faith. I think of our conversations about theology, missions, church life, family life, etc. and much of that is at center stage in the ec.
(Okay, I have to stop writing comments longer than my posts. lol)
Good thoughts Joe. I’m a bit old to be emergent but I think ec in some ways says some things I am saying too. So I guess since it is a “conversation” I can pipe in!
A while ago a friend mentioned to me a book he’d read called Filipino Religious Consciousness. He said that generally, Filipinos are animists with a gloss of Catholicism over it. To preach the gospel to them, don’t preach it to Roman Catholics, preach it to animists and you’ll connect with them better. We were in Burma when we discussed it and we decided to try it. Instead of preaching the gospel to Buddhists, we preached it to animists with a Buddhist gloss.
The difference was that we put the accent not on sin and forgiveness (they were covered) but we decided to put the accent on Jesus’ power over sin and death and his present reign. That afternoon when I shared my testimony, I talked about how before conversion I was controlled by my friends. They told me that something was cool to do and I did it. I was under their control. But when I became a Christian Jesus freed me from that power.
I’m not kidding, the room leaned forward when I got to how Jesus freed me from the power of others. That is what animists are looking for: power.
So what is the post-modern culture looking for? The gospel can be faithfully preached, including sin and forgiveness, while putting the stress on what post-moderns are interested in. I think it is community. We can cover all the bases but spend more time talking about the community of Jesus’ followers. The kind of community we share with everyone who has ever been a follower of Jesus. Then we can live that way.
That isn’t a threat to the gospel. It is a threat to the standard formulation of the gospel. The Four Spiritual Laws are speaking to the wrong issue. For a previous generation sin was an issue. For the next generation, sin is not such a big deal but community is important.
< <"It includes Catholics, universalists, Calvinists, and all sorts.">>
Joe (and others),
I really do understand that there isn’t a “gelled”, concise list of agreements or disagreements of the ec. Honest, I get it. I’m ok with it being in the formation stage.
My concern is that, in the past, anything that has come along and seemingly “unified” all of the above groups has, in effect, stood for nothing at all and has also, at the same time, led a lot of people away from the authority of scripture. (Liberalism is but one example.)
In the same way that I think Mormons could teach us a few things (like how to care for one another) I wouldn’t go around suggesting people look into Mormonism to find out how they care for their own — I might use their caring for one another as a good example, but I wouldn’t hold them up as a model group to be investigated… and oh, by the way, there’s some bad stuff there, too, so be careful. Perhaps your list would be a good idea, but why are some ok and others not? Is the conversation just this big that all the “quasi-christians” and christians alike are talking about the same topics??? And if that’s the case, how much of my time is this conversation REALLY worth?
My stammering frustration about this is that we’re holding up ec as something to consider rather than family life, church life, community life, etc. (the things you mentioned in your post). Why not just talk about these issues from a truly biblical perspective directly?
Really, truly, I’m not an ignoramous — I could talk about these issues as one who is engaged… clued in… on the ball… hip even! But to keep using phrases, terms, ideas that are unique to ec (or in ways that are unique to ec) is entirely unhelpful. I couldn’t care less about being cool enough to figure out the lingo (unless someone is willing to explain it to me), but the concepts and dialog about living out our faith in a truly God-honoring way… THAT I can understand. If the ec really wants to engage those who are older than they, then why use what feels like secrecy?
Sometimes my little kids are in a room being very quiet. What do you think my response is? To investigate and fast! Occasionally, they’re coloring or some other innocent thing — but usually, they’re doing something they should not be doing. That’s what this feels like to me. Perhaps there’s nothing to be suspicious about, but my hunch is to be very cautious.
Surely you can at least understand how muddy this water is and how much I don’t want to swim in the mud when it’s not even clear whether it’s a good idea!
Laurie,
This woud be so much more fun sitting around the dinner table. You guys HAVE to come over soon. I’ll talk to you about it Sunday (especially since you’ll soon be out of the country for a few months).
Yep, as I have googled “emerging church” and walked back through the prominent sites, it is plain that much of that is not only unclear to outsiders, but it doesnt say much.
Yep, some are more about the “ec,” than about the issues the ec is discussing. I don’t think I fall in here, but let me know if you think so. I would not say that the ec is the answer. Not at all. Only that they are having a great conversation. And those conversations are theological/topical. How does the Gospel relate to social justice? Why do we separate families during worship? Should we? What place should the local church have in the life of a Christian? These are serious discussions in the ec.
We have had such conversations from our beginning a few years ago and have never been aligned with the ec. Though not an “emerging church” we have a lot in common with some emerging churches. But copying the ec is not my, nor our leadership’s, nor the church’s interest.
Is the ec worth your time? I would say good books are worth your time and good conversation is worth your time – and I know you would agree. I don’t waste my time reading garbage. I do NOT have the time for that. So I would just encourage you to read good books and have good conversation and if that overlaps with ec great. If not, who cares?
As for you being “engaged… clued in… on the ball… hip even!” Agreed, agreed, agreed… I’ll forego addressing the use of “hip” and say you are indeed very cool. Your kids told me you like Good Charlotte!
Joe:
When I saw your post pop in my aggregator I was eager to read it as I’ve been trying to figure out what it is about and why you and others are so attracted to EC.
I’m still lost. About the only nugget I have been able to gather is the example of a greater emphasis on community (communio), which I think is spot on.
Are you at all concerned, Joe, that in a post designed to offer clarity about what EC is your main technique was to say what it is not?
Also, I saw the mention that Catholics are involved. Are they really? I personally have been trying to learn some more about what EC is and, being a Catholic, seeing their thoughts on it might help me as I probably would understand their vocabulary a bit more. But all I could find over at Theooze.com was complaints that there aren’t Catholics involved or references to some ex Catholics or people who grew up Catholic. If you can point me in the right direction I would genuinely love to learn more about EC. (I might have to break down and borrow a copy of generous orthodoxy.)
All that said, I’m impressed by the genuine seeking of God that comes across in the posts of you and Joe and others I stumbled across through your two blogs. But I must be honest that I read your guys posts on EC and I follow the christian culture critique elements of them, but am lost when there’s an effort to say what EC is.
Jack, thanks for visiting my blog. I probably need to start a new post, “What I Like and Don’t Like About the Emerging Church.” I’ll do that tomorrow. Though it would only reflect my thoughts on some of the trends I see in the ec, it would provide some concrete things to look at.
But to respond to the early part of your comment, all I have said is that I am conversing with those in the ec on issues important to the ec. Does that make me a part of it? I guess. Some in the conversation would say I am not ec at all, while others would say I am. I really don’t care either way. What I don’t want to do is dismiss everyone involved for the errors of some. I don’t do that with the SBC, the reformed traditions, and I think we should show the same courtesy to this group.
Don’t disagree with you one bit there, Joe.
Joe,
I have remained silent on this whole issue as I wanted to see where the discussion was headed and frankly just don’t have the time to keep up with it. As you know, I’ve got a lot going on with my job, preparing to relocte to the UK for awhile and all. However since I’ve been having trouble sleeping of late (has to do with being in Europe recently for 10 days more than than anything else I think) and am awake now at 3 AM, I thought I’d share my feelings on the subject.
Despite your comments in defense of the ec, I am still feeling quite uncomfortable about the whole thing and especially the way that you seem to have embraced it (i.e. you and Steve calling yourselves “emerging leaders” on his website for example – which seems like an endorsement to me). I also have to confess that I haven’t read much about the topic other than excerpts from McLaren and the articles against his views from those men whom I admire and have come to trust over the years. I know that there’s more to it than McLaren, but he does seem to be the leader and so much of what is said and believed goes back to his interpretation of things. So my views are one sided. However, what I have read does have me greatly concerned — it smells a whole lot like the Warren-Hybels Purpose-Driven Church Growth Movement, Open Theism stuff that sent us fleeing from our previous church. I like clarity and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of it here. I like historic, biblical Christianity too, but more importantly, I think it is what our God is pleased with. I could be wrong and obviously can’t speak for Him, but I think that this stuff wouldn’t please Him much — the focus is too much on the individual and not on Him. God is also very clear and not vague. We know where He stands on the issues in contrast to the ec stuff. Grace’s embracement of historic, biblical Christianity (and how GBC was putting that into action) combined with your personal love of reformed theology and of the Purtitans, Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, etc. are what led us to Grace Baptist. I don’t see how this ec “conversation” fits into all of that without weaking GBC’s strengths. Of course, I’m all for the discussion if it improves our effectivness in proclaiming the Gospel to our local community, but I guess I need help in understanding how this ec stuff helps that. It seems as if ec types have to water down the Gospel to reach the postmoderns and I can’t agree with that. I guess I need to read more on it, but what I’ve read so far scares me.
A lot of what I think about it is summarized very well by another old guy like me, Steve Camp, on his website in the article “Reinventing Calvinism” (McLaren specifically and his new version of Calvin’s TULIP – go to Steve’s website at http://a1m.org to read it).
I hope that I’m wrong about where I feel this thing is headed and maybe I’m not thinking clearly as it is close to 4AM or so
but know that my thoughts and concerns are said in a spirt of love towards you – my pastor and my dear brother.
Rick,
I am sending you an email to explain more fully. The short answer is, Grace’s theology has not changed nor have we changed direction. We are only moving forward with Jesus – allowing the truth that we have always embraced to propel us on. Thanks for visiting the blog brother! Email on the way.
Great discussion here guys. Obviously, this is far off topic, but I don’t think Mark Driscoll would consider himself part of the ec in any way. Now, a little digging will find you an “emergent” baseball card with his face on it– but from what I understand, he has worked pretty hard to distance himself from the movement. Blessings to all the folks @ Grace.
Yeah, Driscoll – and some others – are opting to use something other than the ec title, though in publications MH is considered ec because of their approach to culture. Great church out there.
It seems that people have chosen to distance themselves from the ec because of the theological agenda within the conversation. If emergent dealt only with cultural engagement, then I don’t think people would be raising eyebrows like they are. Just my two cents, I don’t claim know much about the ec, and I could be way off.
Comments on this entry are closed.