emerging church luke on 07 Apr 2008 02:42 pm
What is the Emerging Church?
- [Editor's note: the following was written by Will Kinchlea at Blood and Water (original article here) and reprinted because Will was cool enough to let me...]
The popular church press these days seems to consistently touch upon what is commonly known as the “Emerging Church” – the subject generally being quite negative. Generally, these critiques revolve around how the “Emerging Church” disavows truth, loves disorganization and loves rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Frankly, this is simple untrue.
Before we go any further, let us first make sure we know who were are talking about. Its most important to remember that “Emerging Church” is not and should not be a title, but a description. The emerging Church is a porous description that blankets most churches who are trying to become conversant with postmodernism – those who are reshaping themselves to reach out to the disillusioned people of the 21st Century. Essentially we’re talking about people who do church for the emerging generations. Get it? Good.
Here’s the rub: most people think far too small when it comes to the emerging church. Essentially, when people hear of the “Emerging Church”, most tend to think of the American contingent – or conversation – known as Emergent (http://www.emergentvillage.com), led by Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christian and its subsequent sequels. Almost all of the major problems that are arising amongst mainline evangelicals about the emerging church stem from Emergent’s statements on relativity, the agnostic views towards certain orthodoxies and fringe worship and prayer practices. While not necessary putting any of these down at this time –mostly because these are also misrepresented – that is not the subject at hand.
While Emergent and its followers are the most vocal and well-known people in the emerging sphere, their’s is a vocal minority. Their ideologies and practices represent very little of the totality that is emerging in the world. Simply stopping at blogs like Andrew Jones’ Tall Skinny Kiwi (http://www.tallskinnykiwi.com), one can see the world trends of the emerging church.
So what are the main ideas that seem to encompass what it is to be emerging? Scot McKnight, author of the scholastic blog, Jesus Creed (http://www.jesuscreed.org) and self-proclaimed emerging follower, says in a paper to the Westminster Theological Seminary on October 26-27, 2006, that there are 4 ‘rivers’ that flow into ‘Lake Emerging’: postmodernism, praxis (practice), postevangelical and politics.
Postmodernism should not be seen as moral relativism and denial of absolute truth, but of a time to re-assess what is actually being taught to society, or the church, and to quest for what is actually truth, and not generally-accepted truths. Christian postmodernists believe in absolute truth, they just don’t believe that we, as a people, know everything.
One of those ‘in-the-know’ words amongst emerging thinkers is ‘praxis’. Praxis – essentially, practice – is the short form for orthopraxy or ‘right practice’. The emerging church phenomenon places a very large emphasis on doing. They are primarily a missional people, reaching out to their community while they feel the evangelical community is still trying to get people to come to them. Emerging leaders want their congregants and leaders to go out and live like Jesus the way Jesus actually lived: healing the sick; embracing the fringe peoples; helping people see the light of God. Not only do they go out and ‘do’, but they also explore different ways of worship, much the same way Tyndale attempts to explore new ways of worship each week on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
As for post-evangelical, Scot McKnight, echoing D.A. Carson is correct in saying that the emerging phenomenon is a rejection of many, if not most, evangelical ideologies. It is important to know that these ideologies are not the ‘ideals’ that are whimsically called upon by prominent christian writers, but the generally-accepted facts of Christianity by the majority of evangelicals. This is seen through through 3 ‘post’s: [1] post-bible-study-piety, the – for lack of a nicer term – phariseeism of our theological gnosis; [2] post-systematic-theology, the need to get away from firm lines and statements and to return to the biblical narrative as our starting point; and [3] post-in-vs.-out, the most controversial element, which can be best stated by reading C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, chapter 15, about Emeth the Calormene.
The Final stream of McKnight’s description of emerging is politics. Generally, emerging politics lean left, usually quite left, when it comes to the political spectrum. The importance of the social gospel is paramount to this group. Most evangelicals see ’social gospel’ as bad word at best, but emerging churches see it as important as the ’spiritual gospel’. Emerging canadians would most likely tend towards voting Green Party, if that helps frame the political sphere.
These are the 4 emphases the emerging church ‘movement’ are taking hold of: postmodernism, praxis, postevangelicalism and politics. It’s important to note that these are emphases and not hard and fast rules or policies. Everyone part of the emerging church will expend different amounts of energy on each of the emphases. This is what makes the emerging church so hard to define, it’s like trying to describe something as porous as a historical movement, while it’s happening. So as people criticize the emerging church movement, one can either take it as it is told to them or they can learn for themselves what the emerging church really is. As Scot McKnight says in his WTS paper,
In other words, if you define emerging as Brian McLaren, and then narrow Brian to his sometimes incautious – even if nearly always probing and suggestive – comments about postmodernity and epistemology, and then roll out the implications of what Brian would seem then to believe, and then close with two chapters about what the Bible says about truth, you will give the impression that emerging is about hard postmodernism and, if you got your guts about you, you should avoid these folks like the bubonic plague. Which is what some are doing… which is fine
… unless you want to be accurate.”
5 Responses to “What is the Emerging Church?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on 14 Apr 2008 at 9:27 am # mama-san
Could the emerging church movement be compared to the time period in history called the “Reformation”?
on 14 Apr 2008 at 12:26 pm # Chris
Reform, like change, is a constant thing! Most of the EC stuff is not NEW, it is just a renewed perspective. So I reckon it can be very much compared to the Reformation. Whether it is a fair comparison in terms of the huge influence on culture, politics and intellectual thought, it remains to be seen though.
I have read a lot about paradigm shifts and this new postmodern age that has exploded on us. I remain slightly unsure as to whether I am fully convinced- it is difficult to understand the scope of anything that you are in the middle of I suppose.
EC in my context is often very different to the USA.
EC over here can be stereotyped as often the territory of intellectual creative Anglicans (feel free to disagree with me you UK emergenty folk!)
What excites me though, is that it also provides a way that we can speak again of God and Spirituality to people who have rejected traditional expressions of church and faith.
Another difference is that seems to seperate the US from the UK is that EC over there still looks pretty much like traditional church- you know, it has buildings, pastors, career structures sunday sermons etc.
Here, it ain’t necessarily so. EC in the UK can be in a pub, or in a back room, or meet only to do art. It is emphemeral and sometimes very difficult to define. What unites us is a decision to move away from what used to be, and to re-axamine faith, belief and practice.
In this way, we often look like the early church, or perhaps the 1970’s house church movement- nothing is new, but everything needs to be made new!
on 14 Apr 2008 at 8:28 pm # mama-san
So Chris are you saying that the emergent church is more about taking the church outside of the 4 walls of a traditional church setting?
on 15 Apr 2008 at 3:01 am # Chris
Hmmm… No, not really. I suppose ‘EC’ is a label that means so many different things. And what your church looks like, where it is located, depends where you start from- back to the old issue of context.
Most of the traditional churches over here have been trying to encourage people to think outside their boxes however. For instance, there was a very influential Church of Scotland Document called ‘Church without walls’. Many of these (another bit of jargon coming) ‘fresh expressions of Church’ would seem to be an attempt to renew things within a traditional church setting, and quite a few may also wear the EC label too- at least in the UK.
In order to change though, we have to leave something behind. This might be physical buildings and structures, but perhaps more importantly, fixed doctrinal positions on what Paul in Romans would call ‘disputable matters’. Also, I see people leaving behind evangelism as selling-a-product, and starting to find ways to live sacrificially and missionally (if that is a word!)
Our theology, or our understanding of the Gospel and life of Jesus gives us our principles, and out of these grow practices, or at least I hope so. Humilty is pretty important too!
The point I was making in my ramblings above was that what we are doing may be renewed, but it is not new.
on 19 Apr 2008 at 7:43 pm # alistair
evening all
especially thought gifts
The emerging church at the moment, as far as I vizualize it, is stuck in the library of the academy. This is not a bad thing, however when you leave the library door the cold blast of a midwestern winter really does make you wrap up, as does reality.
The EC is more fruit from the reformation, its siblings are modernism, post modernism constructivism, critical theory, modern capitalism, liberation theology, nihilism, atheism….
This is not a listing of concepts but areas I experientially delved into to understand my own thinking and feeling.
In trying to define the REAL from reality we are entering into an area very few pastors or church leaders can actually confidently hold their ground. McLarens book had me on occasions wishing to through it against a wall - as three professors having a conversation would never ever allow one to hold fort and ‘teach’ the others on what is truly real, metaphorically or not. But its Mclarens education that seeps through the book. Most Pastors and church leaders have thrust upon them the concept that the shepherds have to lead the sheople.
My thinking is that ‘pastors’ have to teach (and even that is a debate in itself) the commands of Christ… which are? Love God… and love neighbour…
In defining the EC as post modern we are directly moving into an area of philosophy that many are not qualified or experienced enough to tackle. For we enter into a darkness. A darkness that many have not wrestled with
The concept is nothing new, there is some discussion within the EC on the Darkness of God, Rollins access’s references to dark-age church philosophy that discuss this concept. Within medieval alchemy the period of darkness or melancholia, that must first be endured before light appears in the crucible, is necessary (Newton, DesCartes etc)
Although I find that Rollins seems to inhabit that space described by Nietzsche:
‘… a question seems to lie heavily on our tongue and yet refuses to be uttered: whether one could consciously reside in untruth? Or if one where obliged to, whether death would not be preferable’.
Within that space of being in tension of un/truth, without reference to the words of Christ, will–I think– lead to the place of thinking since the enlightenment and applied today; nihilism. unless wrestled through completely and our minds renewed, how can we bring light into the culture where context is the key.
However the current use in EC of contextualization is very similar to the liberation theologians’ application of critical theory. Its fine within the philosophy, but it is contingent upon the philosophy
Then I stumbled over an abstract of a paper by Ian Hunter:
‘Although history is the pre-eminent part of the gallant sciences, philosophers advise against it from fear that it might completely destroy the kingdom of darkness- that is scholastic philosophy- which previously has been wrongly held to be a necessary instrument of theology.
I read it again, but couldn’t access it as its in the academy.
The Kingdom of Darkness as scholastic philosophy had me running through the concepts of Dawkins, Marx, Nietzsche, Kant, Hume, Smith and their applications today…. and what the NT has to say about this kingdom, the soul, and LIGHT.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts
Do I think the EC is a worthwhile endeavour.. yes. Do I think its important? not until it comes out of the academy
Faith is simple, applying it complex. Present context: my adolescent neighbours are partying in my seedy block in this town, doors banging, white lightning flowing, buckfast wine bottles clinking (made by monks of course) screetchy girls, growling boys and jumped up bump and grind… and here am i typing to you lot mmmh… just another saturday night
What ought I do?… be patient I did the same, I’ll see them hungover tomorrow LOL. Delicacy of mind can be a great ‘teachable’ moment, but I wont spank them with Jesus.