Emergent(ing) Confusion
One of the difficulties of dealing with theological (or any other) movements is the task of defining your terms. This is something that I learned growing up in Arizona where there is a large concentration of Mormons. It is possible to have a theological conversation with a Mormon and walk away thinking that there is agreement where there is not (or at least should not be). This is because both participants might be using the same terminology, but both parties are not using the same meaning.
I was recently asked about my thoughts concerning the “emerging church” to which I immediately replied “define the emerging church.” Many people use terms such as emerging and/or emergent as a catch-all umbrella, yet it becomes immediately apparent that even those under the umbrella don’t agree that they’re under the same umbrella. Ask four people to define “emergent” and you’ll receive five different answers.
Scot McKnight defines it as “a coversation about the future direction of the evangelical church in a postmodern world; it’s a reaction and a protest against traditional evangelical churches; and it’s a conversation focused less on theological niceties and more on ‘performing’ the gospel in a local setting.” That’s all fine, but now define “traditional evangelical churches.” You see the problem quickly that it’s a conversation, but no one is quite sure who’s in it and what its about.
We’ve seen this frustration in D.A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church which focuses quite a bit on Brian McLaren, which apparently is simply to critique McLaren and little else. Phil Johnson tries to define the “movement/conversation/dialogue/nebulous fog” in four parts: 1) “a broad-based and growing assortment of similar or related movements that have flourished in the past half-decade–mostly on the fringe of the evangelical movement, (wait, please define “evangelical….”), 2) “Most congregations would describe themselves as missional, by which they mean they stress the importance of evangelistic outreach by involving themselves in the lives of unbelievers…”, 3) “a preference for ‘narrative theology’ as opposed to systematic doctrine,” and 4), they don’t often hold the idea of propositional truth in very high regard.”
Johnson does little to hide his frustration and anyone who’s tried to examine the movement at all shares in at least a bit of this frustration. At some point, mere “dialogue” is not enough. The church cannot accept McLaren’s “five year moratorium” on pronouncements because God’s Word calls for them. While I feel for those involved, Scripturally, homosexuality is only a difficult issue because we make it so; Scripture is clear even when we are not.
I will be the first to admit that the emergents have much to say that needs to be heard. They present a good emphasis on community which is essential to the life of the Church. This also comes out in the relational emphasis on evangelism. This leads into the “missional” aspect, which I do think is a much needed discussion. For far too long, too many churches have become complacent with the Gospel and we need to be shaken from our slumber.
However, the good is mixed with much bad, particularly the moves away from authority structures and propositional truth. The New Testament model of Church is not a “bottom up” model that some would like to think; it is one shepherds caring from the sheep. No right-minded shepherd would ask the sheep what they think of his decisions. He is there to protect them because they need protection. Elders are given to the Church as more than figureheards. Part of living the Christian life is learning to submit ourselves to authority, whatever it might be.
While I understand that not all emergents shy away from propositional truth, we would be naive to claim that it is not a large part of the movement and I would assert that we would also be naive to believe that Christianity exists without propositonal truth. Yes, doctrine has been misused, but there’s something people say about babies and bathwaters that seems appropriate here.
As a pastor, my plea is to those involved: please, seek clarity. Please say something. There is a doctrine known as the perspicuity of Scripture which teaches that it is clear, it is understandable, please don’t lose that, even if it does require propositional truth. I’m not opposed to dialogue (that’s part of why I write a blog), but at some point, the “conversation” must say something. I’m patiently awaiting that something.
- Read Scot McKnight’s article (PDF file)
- Read “Absolutely Not! A Critical Look at the Emerging Church Movement” by Phil Johnson.
- Read Rhett Smith’s thoughts on Phil’s critiques.
I’m with you in your assessment here. I appreciate the emergent conversation in its thought-provoking nature, but the slippery, semantic side of the discussion is sometimes over the top.
Brent:
Agreed. The emergent movement has some good things to say (community, evangelism, missions, etc.) and it needed to be said and heard. It has and will cause us to pause and evaluate. But sooner or later there has to be some definition as to what you believe or propositional truth. Isn’t the fact that you do not believe in propositional truth a propositional truth? I think if anything goes, everything will and nothing does…
For those interested, Robert Webber’s book The Younger Evangelicals does a good job of describing the emergent movement as well as comparing it to (as he defines) the traditional evangelicals and pragmatic evangelicals. (Again, it is a description, no propositions).
that whole “bottom-up” mention wasn’t in regards to my comment..was it? :-)
Good post Brent.
Contrary to popular belief I am not about everything emergent. But like many, and probably more so than you or some others, I am a big fan (not the best word to use) of emergent and particpate in some of their communities on various occassions, whether it was the now defunct conference, to some small gatherings of friends, etc.
I was asked the other day about emergent, and I really had no answer to give the person…at least not a satisfactory answer. I could really only point to examples, which I was fine with, and am at this point. But the word is so loaded, much like when someone asks about postmodernity….how do you define that? It is super complicated, takes on many different thinkers and ideas, and to probably a lot of people’s surprises, is not new, but was coined I believe in the 1920’s coming out of some architectural movement. So it’s hard to grasp.
At this point, I am comfortable with not being able to define it. But also, for me, emergent is not the theoretical practice or perspective that I do ministry out of, but rather, I employ a lot of the positive aspects that I think emergent offers and use them in my ministry…such as dialogue, more artistic or creative forms of worship, etc. Some succeed and other times..well, crash and burn.
It’s like a tool in a toolbelt….I was raised and trained on the grammatico-historical hermeneutic, raised in a Bible church, in an evangelical seminary, work at a PCUSA church. So those are the contstraints or boundaries of what I have operated in. But I think that emergent has a lot to offer and there are some things that I have learned from them and continue to dialogue with them about.
I feel as if I am caught between two worlds at times. Born and raised in the baby-boomer hey-day of the 80’s, contemporary services, drums introduced into church, mega-churches, etc, etc….that is the air I breathed and was born into. But I work with students who breath a different air, born in the 90’s and who approach church very differently. The tension between the two though, I believe, has created a very creative tension. Though my students may not know of emergent, they speak that language, because they were birthed into that environment.
I have to be honest. I am challenged and continue to wrestle with how to proclaim God’s truth, how to be missional, etc, etc. to 18-23 year olds living in Los Angeles. Not, how to make it relevant to them. But rather, how do they hear God’s word. How do I best proclaim it? Obviously the Holy Spirit does the work, but how do I engage them in their culture and speak the truth of God to them? Those are just questions I have as I work on a sermon.
As for “bottom-up” theory…well. I get the ecclesiastical structure of the NT, but I also think there is a “bottom-up” element in those writings…not per se, in an individual church…but the NT church as a “bottom-up” movement, opposed to the powers of the Roman Empire. And I think a lot of people find themselves in big churches where there is this growing opposition to where the larger church is being led, and “bottom-up” thinking questions and dialogues against some of these things. ex. i see this in some mega-churches where the larger church begins to move in a direction that those at the bottom no longer feel is viable, or Biblical, whatever.
With the explosion of the web and information in everyone’s hands, it is a reality that is here and is going to be ever more present. And its impact on the church will be interesting.
wow…is this a comment or my own post…
i’m out…
dialogue with you later :-)
Thanks Rhett. No, the “bottom’s up” comment wasn’t directed at you, or I would have simply named you and linked your post, but it has been a concept I’ve been seeing quite a bit lately. I found it interesting that I should come across that concept around the same time I wrote against the idea of Baptist “congregational rule.”
Your talk about growing up in the 80’s, etc. is interesting. One of the things that seems to continually reappear (at least for me) is the relationship between the “Emerging” stuff and the church-growth/seeker-sensitive movement. The two bear striking similarities, regardless of Dan Kimball’s denial.
Your comments also bring up the question of whether “mega-churches” are healthy, practical, biblical, etc. The model seems to be church-planting in order to maintain an environment of “body life,” hospitality, accountability and discipline, all of which fade as a church grows larger numerically.
Now I’m off on several rabbit-trails, better stop now!
Thanks Rhett!
isn’t a component of postmodernity not only a reaction against modernity, but also an exagerration of modernity…hence, our baby boomer parents and the mega church, seeker-sensitive movement was a reaction against modernity (if I can use that term for now)….and postmodernity and emerging church, etc. is a further exageration of what was begun with our parents. Unique in it’s own ways…but nonetheless an exagerration. I picture it on a continuum almost…heading from end to the next, with its own characteristics….
Brent,
I enjoyed the post. I have heard and researched quite a bit on the “emerging church” language and dialogue, especially since I am moving into a college ministry where much of the young adult/college mindset and beliefs fall into this “emergent” philosophy (I agree with Rhett on this!).
I agree with you that what is defined as “emergent” varies depending upon who you ask and where they’re coming from. I just returned from a college pastor conference (Thirsty ‘06) and had a few discussions with others on the emergent movement. Interestingly, every person I talked to had a different perspective, definition, and take on what the emergent movement was about!
I, along with Rhett, believe that there are some good things coming out of the emergent movement (artistic expression, dialogue, etc.) but we do need to be very careful that we adhere to sound, Biblical doctrine and accurate teaching of God’s Word. There is no substitute for this, postmodern, emergent, or whatever.
Doctrine Statement, or no Doctrine Statment?…
Yesterday, Tony Jones posted at the Emergent–US site yesterday the issue regarding whether or not Emergent needs a doctrinal statement. The post was written by professor and scholar F. LeRon Shults. At the last Emergent Conference in San Diego……
NT as top down model? Bottom up model? Both are metaphors of a vertical system. I think the NT church is best described as horizontal. We’re also seeing this today - the Internet facilitating primary spiritual community for an increasing number of believers - a horizontal flattening of the church, at once contextually global -and- local. Tim Bednar gets into detail here:
http://www.e-church.com/Downloads/We%20Know%20More%20Than%20Our%20Pastors.pdf
JL