You asked What IS Emergent? and it doesn’t look like you’ve gotten an answer yet. From your other posts on your blog, it sounds like you may not “resonate” (to use an emergent-y kind of word) with a lot of what the emerging church (or “EC”) voices are saying, at least theologically, but allow me to stop and applaud the willingness, even desire, to dialogue with us EC-types.
Finally. As you know, we’ve been pretty beaten up lately… and there’s nothing that so refreshes the soul and so “sharpens iron” as honest dialogue, the kind where nobody has any vested interest in “converting” the other, just exchanging ideas which sharpen our own understandings. But you gotta know, if you’re going to call yourself “An idealist and dreamer wandering in a desert of cynicism,” then you do sound kind of emergent yourself ;^)
So… first off, I don’t blame you for not understanding what EC is about… we’re still working that one out ourselves, and even the Wikipedia definition is in flux at the moment. It isn’t that we don’t know what we’re doing, it’s just that the expressions of EC are quite diverse, and an all-encompassing definition has therefore proven a greater challenge than people realize. Reasonable attempts at defining EC have been made by Andrew Jones and by Will Samson, and Andrew (TSK) Jones has created an online area called EmergAnt to help flesh it out a bit more for people.
Before we get too much further though, we also have to pause and say that sometimes the word Emergent isn’t the same as emergent or emerging… sometimes it refers to the group called Emergent Village. I’ve written further about this here, and it’s worth a look for some further reading, with a number of further links to chase down. Suffice it to say there are not one, but several groups or associations of emergently-minded folks, and they pretty much get on well together. But they aren’t the same. This leads back to the definition, which in order to understand why it’s difficult to summarize, we must realize that there are more than one “flavour” of emerging church.
Now don’t throw up your arms — hold on, stay with me… this part is important. Alan Creech and Rob McAlpine have (independently) described the overall emerging church as comprising three “streams” or “types” of EC. (Robbymac describes two, but one of those comes in two types, so again, three). Alan Creech’s three posts are linked from this post of mine, which manages to relate the whole thing to Lawrence of Arabia.
Now, if we were to sum up a few common (though perhaps not universal) characteristics about or ideals of EC, we might offer the following:
- Something’s wrong with the way we’ve been “doing church” — it’s become, or becoming, ineffective and irrelevant.
- Christianity must be re-contextualized for postmodern culture.
- The church must be missional.
- It’s time for a re-examination of what is really central to the faith and a re-consideration of what the best structure for church ought to be.
and therefore,
and based on these,
Well, this summary can elicit a couple of responses, from “What does that mean on the other side of the jargon?” to “Hold on, you’re changing everything!” Well, yes — or almost. What’s not up for grabs is the central gospel, Truth as we have it from the Bible. Let’s return to the list and elucidate upon each item.
- This is based upon observation, but Barna supports it. Something’s broken. In this category we have a whole bunch of personal stories, many of them pain-filled, which drive people from traditional churches into EC. In my own journey, I basically said that I had to choose between a crisis of ecclesiology or a crisis of faith. This, though, is the personal angle, the “sign” that led each of us to dig deeper.
- Christianity in its modern expression is increasingly irrelevant to the culture in which it’s immersed. Culture is changing, and we are in fact at an epoch-al change in time as the world begins the shift from modernity to postmodernity. Many see postmodernity as “the great evil” and attempt to reject it as anything to which theology should adapt, but this isn’t the point for EC-ers. To us, it appears that postmodernity simply is. It isn’t an optional philosophy or anything of the sort, it’s more akin to the prevailing worldview of our culture — not like a worldview that can be cast off and replaced, but one which can be shaped by the presentation of the gospel… if the gospel can be made relevant within that culture or worldview. This is what missiologists have for years called contextualization and is the subject of this more in-depth post by Robbymac. There’s a lot of fear about postmodern theology, but what is being proposed is actually theology for postmodern times, which is different. Yes, Truth does exist. The next step is to pick your non-negotiables (say, the Apostles’ Creed) and start re-examining everything else. Our gospel is affected by our culture (another fact recognized by missiologists), and only by rethinking and distilling it can we get it pared back to what’s really non-negotiable. We find in this exchange that there’s a lot more philosophical and cultural baggage incorporated into it than we first thought. I once asked a rhetorical question here on this blog, “Why are missiology and ecclesiology not the same conversation?” and of course, the answer is that EC is in large part an attempt to make them the same conversation. Step one in this process is contextualization, and it seems to make most evangelicals nervous.
- “Missional” is another way of saying “outward-focused.” The modern church today is based upon an evangelistic-attractional model, whereas missional church, whereas a shift is seen as necessary to move to being missional-incarnational. Major differences between the two modes are summarized by Adam Feldman in a series of articles (the other posts in the series are linked from each post). In a nutshell, this says rather than build megachurches, let’s just get out and meet the neighbours. It’s about taking church to the people rather than bringing people to church… and it’s a the heart of my motto, “Live your faith. Share your life.”
- So church needs to be re-invented. It’s got to be more culturally relevant, but in large part, this is being done in a less heirarchical, more flat, destructured, decentralized fashion. Sometimes the churches look traditional (at least on the outside) and sometimes they’re house churches or networks of very small gatherings. There’s a fair bit of diversity here, but even the ones that maintain the more traditional structures are changing methodologies.
Well, there you have it. This won’t summarize all ECs, and it’s a fairly long answer that directs you to even more reading… but if you do a fair bit of that “within two clicks” of this article, you’ll come to a pretty fair understanding of what EC is about.
Brother Maynard,
You continue to make so much sense. You must be a heretic. :)
This is a brilliant piece of work. I sense an coming on…
Oops, tried to be clever with my tag but your commenting software appears to have won the upper hand.
Simply put, I’m linking to this one!
Observations on observations:
1. The church as it exists (in its wonderfully diverse forms) is a haven and comfort for many people. To call it broken and irrelevant is your right, but then be careful when you say that the emergent movement is taking a lot of criticism.
2. In my experience, there is a conflict between building a church from people who have “pain-filled” stories and being missional. I’ve just seen too many people who have bounced from church to church to church, switching every time they get their feelings hurt, and honestly, I think you have to stick with one church a little longer than they do to come up with any missional results. At the inevitable risk of being called insensitive, I am going to say this: if you are going to team up with other Christians and accomplish something, sometimes you have to develop a thick skin, check your feelings at the door, and put the higher goal of leading souls to Christ above whether or not your fellow church members put your self-image at the top of their priorities.
As long as ec’s stick to the “what’s not up for grabs is the central gospel, truth as we have it from the BIBLE” then more power to em, if they can make “church” more relevant to the masses…I do agree with opie, to call the church broken and irrelevant might be just a little harsh. The body of Christ is diverse and we need diversity in style and methods of worship and fellowshiping to accommadate the people who make up the body. Church hopping is just another form of consumerism, looking for the best deal, and that leads to the II Timothy 4:3 warning. Those who can be strong, must be strong…those who can develop a thick should, for the sake of the weaker brethern, for the welfare of the whole body.
Regarding Opie’s comments, I agree with #1, we fill find the body of Christ expressed in many different forms.
I’m having trouble understanding #2.
People who have pain-filled stories cannot be missional?
Who are the people bouncing from church to church every time they get their feelings hurt?
Who are those assumed to be thin-skinned and unwilling to make leading souls to Christ a higher priority than their feelings and self-esteem?
Perhaps I have misunderstood or misread. Is this a label applied to those discussing emerging church?
Katie: My comments were in reference to when Brother Maynard said: “In this category we have a whole bunch of personal stories, many of them pain-filled, which drive people from traditional churches into EC.”
“People who have pain-filled stories cannot be missional?” It’s not that they can’t be, it’s that they tend not to be. Missional is an outward focus; letting your choice of church be guided by where and how you have been hurt in the past is an inward focus.
“Who are the people bouncing from church to church every time they get their feelings hurt?
Who are those assumed to be thin-skinned and unwilling to make leading souls to Christ a higher priority than their feelings and self-esteem?” I could answer that by giving you names of people I am thinking of, but you don’t know them. In the last 10-15 years of my life I have made a habit of bringing up faith in conversations outside my church whenever it’s sensible to do so, and in so doing, I have heard a lot of pain-filled stories.
“Is this a label applied to those discussing emerging church?” I brought it up only because Brother Maynard did. My point is that if the emerging church is founded on these kinds of people, it will run into big problems, because all too soon, they will get their feelings hurt in the emerging church and leave it too.
Oh, and by the way, Maryellen nailed it: “Church hopping is just another form of consumerism, looking for the best deal, and that leads to the II Timothy 4:3 warning.”
That puts my own point better than I did.
I’m sorry that the people in your experience are “church-hoppers.” My experience with people who are disillusioned with church as we know it is that they have given up consumeristic expectations of the church and are asking the question of how they can be a more accurate expression of the body of Christ in their life and community. They are not looking for an organization to fulfill them, but rather a place to authentically serve, although that may not look like what would traditionally be considered a church.
I believe that people who have pain and suffering in their story are likely to be much more compassionate to the suffering of others and less likely to be abusive. In my opinion, this puts them in a great place to be missional. Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Lord could use our brokenness in building His kingdom.
Two comments:
When you talk about the non-negotiable elements does that mean there is a basic “statement of truth” which EC’s will have to agree upon? Who will decide what that statement of truth will be?
Whilst I appreciate that some basic level of common belief will be important who decides what that is, or will it become an assumed fact?If this is the case does it mean that the apparently inclusive nature of EC, which is one of the perceived differences with models of church previously devised, is infact a misconception?
In terms of Opie’s worries about those with pain filled stories becoming church hoppers, my own experience (and that is all I can comment from) is that if those pain filled stories become ruts the person becomes stuck in and comftable with then the danger does exist.
However, if through a more accepting and inclusive (?) environment they are allowed room to heal and given the courage to move on that is when they become missional. If the experience that made them pain filled is part of a journey then they are particularly concious of the “joy” of being healed and moving on and so more anxious to live out that gift and allow others to experience the same, which they believe is through and from God. I don’t think this should ever be viewed exclusively as an EC thing, but the nature of EC may mean it occurs more often.
Katie, insightful. I know of churches where a spiritually abusive environment exists, in which it’s hard for people who genuinely want to serve, cannot… this causes pain for them and eventually sends them elsewhere. That is, if they aren’t stuck in the ruts which TG speaks about. Sometimes they get to knowing it’s bad, but feeling powerless to get out. What I’m speaking of in this context is a structure that causes pain, not simply disliking the pastor or the latest worship set… the latter is more of the consumer mindset, but by all means people, if you settle into an organized structure, find one where you at least get along with the pastor! If not, maybe you should move on.
Tractor Girl, good thoughts. When I say “non-negotiables,” these may vary from one person to the next. Typically there would be comfort with an affirmation of the Apostle’s Creed within ECs, but that may be as universal and specific as it could get. I suggest that everyone venturing into EC-land who is entertaining fundamental theological changes to their views pick a dividing line and re-examine everything on the other side of it. As Robbymac said, I rather doubt that a comprehensive corporate EC statement of faith would ’emerge’ since that’d be kinda counter-EC, as you suggest. But you’re right, I think personal healing will tend to make one more missional. I’ve found since becoming more emergent-minded that the mere thought of mentioning Jesus to an “unchurched” (i.e., normal) person isn’t so bad… whereas before, I wasn’t interested because, as I’ve realized after the fact, I really never wanted to convert people into church.
Opie, just to clarify, not everyone in EC are the walking wounded… and there are probably just as many wounded in the traditional churches as well, wounds from whatever source all around. I would agree that good relationships are not built on eggshells, even if I might phrase it differently than you put it ;^) Also just wanted to say thanks for continuing to dialogue with us even though you’re not a 100% EC-convert; appreciate your insights and your questions.
All, I would highly recommend reading the Detox article which Robbymac has linked — I have found it to be extremely insightful, and should help to clarify some of the issues around the wounded and the church-exiters.
Gratia vobis et pax,
Katie: “I believe that people who have pain and suffering in their story are likely to be much more compassionate to the suffering of others and less likely to be abusive.” Let me ask you this: do you honestly think there is anyone who doesn’t have pain and suffering in their story? Or could it be that the difference is in how they handled it?
Bro. Maynard: Thanks for your understanding about my observations. I am not against a new movement in the body of Christ, but my thing is: if we are going to have one, let’s make it real, and not just reactionary. I once heard a businessman say that the worst reason to start a business is because you are all fired up that you can do it cheaper than the other guy. All too often you’ll find out that when you are in the same business as the other guy, you have the same bills as he does and the same challenges. Likewise, if the emergent church thinks its reason for being is to avoid all the dumb mistakes the conventional church made, well let’s be honest enough to admit that the emerging church will be made of humans too.
Opie, well put. I’m all for a real movement as well. I think one of the things about EC though is that there’s a real attempt to do it different… which is why I’m aboard.
Cheers,
thanks, again, for the linkage. this is a worthy discussion. i am not 100% certain that “missional” is only limited to the EC. i think the modern church was highly missional/incarnational in some respects when it came to “foreign” missions. the trick, now, is to get that mindset into our own turf.