Some thoughts on the definition of 'emerging church'

The trouble is, Andew, that however you define the Emerging Church — whether as a separate movement, or a trans-denominational ‘rethink’, it is abundantly clear that it is intent on scratching out 2000 years of traditional belief and understanding of the Scriptures. Like Maria von Trapp, the E/C wants to start at the very beginning, which is indeed a very good place to start, but this ‘review’ wishes to lock NT teaching into a pre-AD70 only relevance — at least if the E/C is to be judged by contributions to this site. This leaves what for AD 2005? I know I have beaten this drum before, forgive me, but where is your certainty? What can the E/C offer a dying world beyond some kind of temporal Liberation Theology? St Paul declared that he knew whom he had believed — but can the E/C ever utter the same cry?

I am slightly bemused by the trans-atlantic, trans-website, trans-denominational dialogue that has been taking place, and identify with Andrew’s desire to bring better definition to the term ‘emergent church’, with the suggestion that at present, it is more of a process than a breakaway group. For me, it is more a conversation than a process - an opportunity to think outside the box, and expose rather radical new ideas to the cold light of day and rational enquiry.

I think we are mistaken to describe ‘postmodernism’ as something separate from and opposed to ‘modernism’. I am very doubtful whether many aspects of ‘modernism’ are going to go away, and there is much in the ‘Enlightenment’ legacy that we should treasure. ‘Postmodernism’ has been described as a critique of modernism - and I think that is where the emphasis needs to lie. But the two exist, it seems to me, in an uneasy symbiotic relationship. One only has to think of the rather simplistic ways in which the characteristics of the one are set against the other, eg hierarchy v. networking, mechanical v. organic, institution v. community and so on, but there are occasions when either approach might be more valid, and as Don Carson said in a fairly recent lecture referred to on this site: "Damn all false antitheses to hell!" (including his own!)

What is called the ‘emerging church’ is a (necessary) reaction to what might be called the ‘modern’ church. But just as the so-called charismatic movement produced a wave of changes which eventually were taken on board by many historic churches which had originally opposed them, so I suspect the critique provided by the ‘emerging church’ will in time spread like leaven through the lump.

But what is the ‘emerging church’? As Andrew says, it is more a process than a break-away group. It is people rethinking their position, in the light of the ‘glass ceiling’ effect, which can often be experienced in more traditional churches, as far as the possibility for further growth and movement with God is concerned. It is people finding that ways of doing things which may have worked at one stage in our culture, don’t seem to work in our culture as it is becoming now. It is an exploration and exchange of views, rather than a wholesale abandoning of orthodox belief. The situation may be different in the US, where the reactions of some on the websites on which the ‘emergent discussion’ has been taking place suggests almost paranoid fear of an organised apostacy. But I suspect that things are not very different from here in the UK - where emerging church is often little more than scattered groups of people and individuals, like myself, who are discussing ideas with others, and meeting together to do so. Website-forum discussions can procreate enormous unreality - and convey to some the impression of organised conspiracy.

My observation is that where some form of ‘fleshed-out’ emergent church is developing, it is more often than not based on fairly conservative evangelical theology - because these are the views of the main movers behind changes. The desire is to reach a world ignorant of Christ more effectively with a life-changing message, and more particularly a life-changing experience of God and God’s people. In this respect, take a look at the international 24-7 prayer movement, described in Pete Greig’s book ‘Red Moon Rising’. The spin-offs are a new kind of community, not based on the traditional Sunday meeting and mid-week home-group of the more traditional church pattern, but sitting very comfortably alongside more conventional types of church structures. Then there are many other ways in which innovative patterns of worship and discipleship are being explored - often alongside and within very traditional church structures.

I haven’t read much Brian McLaren, but his theology seems remarkably traditional to me; his views positively eirenic.

Andrew himself seems to me to be offering a very particular and original take on theology - which is not necessarily universally paradigmatic for an emerging church. At any rate, N.T.Wright, whose approach is foundational to Andrew’s method, explicitly distances himself from identification with postmodernism  (eg ‘New Testament and the People of God’ p.xvii and eslewhere), his theology being very largely that of a traditional evangelical scholar. But the tide of theology is running forward, and the kinds of issues on which the narrative/historical theology (-ies) are based will not go away, and are likely to bring lasting change. At least Andrew has spotted the relevance of some of these changes to a ‘postmodern’ environment, in a way that perhaps few others have.

I’m just pointing out that in talking of the ‘emerging church’, we are describing something very diverse, and nothing like a movement which is showing signs of beoming organised and structured. How could it be, when that is part of what it is reacting against?

Perhaps we should all bear in mind too that definition of a theologian: someone who is trying to answer questions that nobody else is asking. I feel there is often more truth in that statement than is realised.

Yes, Andrew, I came across this reworking of the understanding of emerging church earlier and was struck then by the perspective it gives to the ‘emerging’ project. I think it is absolutely essential and quite correct; it links today’s generation of believers with those that have gone before and those that are at the forefront of the emergence with those that are not actively or knowingly involved.

That said, I am in the process of obtaing Lesslie Newbiggins "Signs Amid the Rubble" which questions the whole notion of progress as it is understood and valued within the West. I am not sure whether that notion is essentially modern and passing away under post-modernity, but one would suspect it might be part of the process. In which case it throws up the question of whether it is right to think about emerging church as essentially progressive - perhaps it is more appropriate to think of it as simply an attempt to make sense of our faith and the world as we understand it: a philosophical enquiry led by the message of Scripture. With respect to Orthodox and Catholic et al traditions, I can’t see what truck they would have with that sort of understanding of the emerging process?

But I suspect that would not be enough for many who do want to identify this as a process which is directly acting upon "church." Where I think there may be a cultural gap between the recent Orthodox and Catholic conversants and many on the OST site, is, as you hinted, in the recognition and understanding and background of Evangelicalism, or as I prefer to see it, and as Alan Jamieson puts it, the EPC (evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic) churches. Perhaps I’m misreading things, but my sense is that many who do identify with the emergent process / conversation / "church" are from that background. And if that is the case, the reformation is much more about those communities than others.

And, if so, perhaps that aspiration needs to become more transparent. In such a context, the Orthodox and Catholic commentators might take on a different shine. I do wonder, reading through some of the other posts on the two particular sites you have referenced, whether the ultimate argument of those commentators might be that the EPC communities never have been authentically "church" because they cannot trace their lineage directly to the original apostles, (except via the Orthodox / Catholic tradition, thereby validating those traditions, with the implication that one ought to therefore return to the fold - at least that’s the kind of thinking I think I detect at times) which is a valid critique and an interesting one.

For myself, coming from a Pentecostal / missionary background, the interesting thing I would associate with the extraordinary growth of that movement is that it is through their "fundamental" approach to the Scriptures they perceive themselves to effectively partake of a direct linkage with the early apostolic church. Hence a strong emphasis within those circles on the book of Acts as a "text book" and a source of expectation for the supernatural to break into the here and now etc. While it’s not particularly fashionable here, remember this is the brand of Christianity which is growing massively worldwide.

And, if we come to the historical / narrative emphasis of NT Wright and indeed yourself, Andrew, is that not also a way of endeavouring to authentically link with the apostolic / early church and the message as they understood it?

For me that helps me to interpret a key difference, in theology, but not in aspiration, between the different traditions referred to. We all, seemingly, want to believe and feel that we are authenticated by our link to the early church in some way.

shalom! - john

As I consider my own journey of faith, I think of two main stages.  First, being raised in a mainline, liturgical church that taught me the creeds, confessions and generally orthodox beliefs.  Let’s call this the message ABOUT Jesus.  The second stage began (and is continuing today) as a result of my seminary training.  It was there that I was introduced to the "kingdom of God."  We can call this the message OF Jesus.  It was this message that brought salvation to the present, sparked a passion for justice, and led me to a pursuit of non-violent peace-making.

The message OF Jesus also made my orthodoxy a little more "generous."  Namely, a generous Father more than a punititive King, an original image more than original sin, an atonement of reconciliation more than substitution, elected to do something more than receive something, an abundant, earthy life today more than in "spiritual", heavenly life off in the future somewhere.  All of which I have gleaned from Scripture as well as Church Fathers and, none of which, would have me dismiss the classic creeds and confessions.

What does this mean for the emerging church?  A group within the western, affluent church that is trying to bring a balance to the message ABOUT Jesus and the message OF Jesus.  Which, for the time being, may look like an emphasis on the latter.  Also, a group that is making space for a little mystery within orthodoxy.  In addition, mystical/experiential more than rational (which includes a renewed interest in historic practices and rituals).  And, finally, a group that is trying to help Christians and churches "emerge" from the boxes they are in.  Namely, be missional more than programmatical and relational more than individual. 

I’ve said "more than" as opposed to "rather than" because I didn’t want to set up false dichotomies.  If I’m going to share these words with others who ask me what the emergent church is, how will I have done?

I think we do have to “revalue” (not ignore) 2000 years of traditional belief and church history. I live in the southeastern United States, in the rural “Bible Belt.” To hear locals tell the history of the church, you would think it fell from the sky in the late 1890’s. I cannot speak to what Christians all over the world believe, but from a glance at popular religion titles in any major Christian bookstore in the U.S., history is compressed; from Jesus, to Paul, to Scofield. I cannot say with absolute certainty, but I would lay odds that most hymns that get sung in the Bible Belt are from the 1890’s - 1930’s, as well. So the theology, worship themes, aesthetics, language, and rhetoric gravitate toward that time period. If anything, I hear in the emerging church a call to be aware of more - not less - church history.

For me, the hope that the emerging church offers is that we will be able to reach back to our global, ancient roots. To stand up in a southern U.S. church and talk about Augustine as an early African theologian upon whom much of our contemporary beliefs rest - that’s a sign of the Holy Spirit, IMHO. Is it postmodern? I don’t really care.

I also see a lot of hope in forming more cooperative and less hierarchical relationships between laypeople and clergy.

All of these trajectories bear a lot in common with postmodernism, and they certainly overlap at points. But I don’t see it as tossing tradition and history out the window. I see it as regarding *privileged* history with suspicion.

Just today i had someone tell me that the emerging church did not talk about judgment and even denied its existence! I think there is a lot of talk about the emerging church that is warped. People are scared because it’s new. It takes time for people to understand the journey that we are on and it takes time for us to understand the ever changing wavescape around us.

This next bit is just a thought. Are people confusing the emerging church with the post-christendom church-scape in general or are they both the same thing?

In order to understand the reactions and misconceptions about emergent, you have to first realize that most people have lived their entire life with little or no exposure to ideas other than their own.  Many people are getting their first exposure to different theological ideas through the emergent conversation.  This is probably true of its critics as well. Therefore, it is easy for them to assume that these ideas are the ideas of the emergent church. In the past, these types of theological and cultural discussions have been confined to seminaries and never before exposed to such a large audience in a format that we can all absorb.

The reality is that NO NEW THEOLOGICAL IDEAS ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE EMERGENT CONVERSATION.  Any one that thinks that these ideas are new is ignorant of the history of Christian theology.  Martin Luther questioned the inclusion of Revelation in the Bible for fear it would lead to misinterpretation of the “end-times” (as it has!).  Karl Barth, considered the father of modern conservative protestant theology, had a view of salvation that bordered on universalism.  Schleiermacher questioned the transcendence of God while Ritshl ignored the trinity and focused on the romantic notion of Jesus’ message on the Kingdom of God.  All of the concepts discussed here and elsewhere throughout the emergent community are examples of people working through these same problems for themselves in their own way drawing on the accomplishments of those that paved the way over the last 2000 years.

Our lack of exposure has created a polarized and insensitive Christian community. It is this polarization that is the key target of the emergent conversation.  As Brian Mclaren showed us, the goal is not finding the perfect point on the scale between liberal and conservative.  It is instead about moving us all to a higher plane of conversation and cooperation.

On Post-modernity…

It seems odd that people use the term “post-modern” as if it is a school of thought or value system that you can accept or reject.  It is not such a creature.  Unless you are hiding in a remote location, then you are part of the post-modern world and are being affected by this current worldview.  If you use the Internet to discuss theology or acquire news and weather, then you might be post-modern.  If you order take-out for dinner, you might be post-modern. If you have seen television shows about cultures across the globe then you might be post-modern.  If you ever watch movies that seamlessly blend reality and fantasy with computerized graphics, then you might be post-modern.  Being post-modern means living in a world that has resulted from the knowledge, technology, cultural, philosophy, and religion created in the modern era.  There is no way that anyone can just decide that they will not be effected by our current culture.  We cannot be so ignorant as to think that we see the world the same way our grandfathers did.  You may not radically differ from your grandfather’s modern theological views, but you probably express them a bit different and you cannot expect the people you encounter in the 21^st century to respond the same way to those same views.  Seeking to understand that reaction is the heart of the emergent conversation.

If the term "post-modern" scares you or if you think the primary character in the “word-a-gud’ is spelled “Jeeeezus”, then I guess you actually might NOT be post-modern, but you just might be a redneck.