New Conspirators on the Emerging Edge (by Tom Sine)
God is doing something new through a new generation of conspirators. They are comprised by at least four streams: emerging, missional, multicultural, and monastic. You can read about what God is doing through a new generation of innovators in The New Conspirators: Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time.
The emerging stream had its beginnings with young leaders in Britain who wanted to create new ways to engage a postmodern generation. They have fashioned a range of imaginative new expressions - from cafes to art centers - that engage those that would never come to a traditional church. You can find a large number of emerging leaders all over the U.S. struggling to create new forms of church. They are connected to groups like Emergent Village, Soularize, and Youth Specialities.
There are a few theologians who question the biblical orthodoxy of some of these leaders. The emerging leaders I have had an opportunity to work with have a very high view of scripture. But they tend to approach scripture more as narrative - story and mystery with a welcome humility.
There are three major characteristics that impress me about the emerging stream that come directly out of their commitment to scripture:
First, they are not only concerned about orthodoxy but orthopraxy. They are interested in seeing a more authentic whole life faith than is often found in established. They are keen to see a faith that impacts every aspect of their lives and lifestyles.
Second, they want to be involved in expressions of church in which word and deed mission is central, not marginal. As a consequence, many emerging churches are often more outwardly focused on the lives and communities in which they serve.
Third, even though many of these young leaders come from evangelical roots, they have left the ideologies of the religious right and political right behind and have started doing their own thinking. As a consequence, they tend to embrace views that transcend right and left. They value family integrity and care for the vulnerable, but also are typically strong advocates of social justice and care of creation.
Next week: the missional stream.
Tom Sine founded Mustard Seed Associates in 1989. He has worked as a consultant in futures research and planning for numerous nonprofit organizations and speaks at gatherings all over the world with his wife, Christine. His newest book, The New Conspirators: Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time, comes out next month. Join the New Conspirators, Feb. 28-29 and Mar. 1 at Bethany Community Church in Seattle and discover what God is doing through a new generation of risk takers. Join this festival of imagination and create new ways to be a difference in uncertain times: www.thenewconspirators.wordpress.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
God is doing something new through a new generation of conspirators. They are comprised by at least four streams: emerging, missional, multicultural, and monastic.
Monasticism new, methinks you're trying to reinvent the Rules of Benedict, Anthony, Cassian, Basil and Augustine.
Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 4:55 PM
"There are a few theologians who question the biblical orthodoxy of some of these leaders. The emerging leaders I have had an opportunity to work with have a very high view of scripture. But they tend to approach scripture more as narrative - story and mystery with a welcome humility."
There are a LOT of theologians who question the biblical orthodoxy of the emerging leaders, and their criticisms are almost universally ignored by emergents.
As for humility, I don't see what is humble about suggesting that other church movements don't "do their own thinking". I do my own thinking just fine, which for me (and many others) means having embraced and largely rejected the emergent movement.
Beyond that, I see little to no diversity of opinion amongst the emergents I have encountered. They all say almost exactly the same thing, and think almost exactly the same way. My theological and political discussions with emergents have been remarkably similar to each other (and always end with the emergent getting very emotional and upset for some reason). They are also uniformly Democrat, though I have never gotten one to admit as much.
If the emergents want to believe what they believe, and sell some books in the process, that is fine. But don't pretend that your critics are simply a small-minded cadre of biblical literalists who speak from pride and do not care about justice or the poor.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 23, 2008 11:14 AM
Taking an entire group of people, lumping them into one category, slapping a label on them and accusing them of having no variance of belief or opinion, and then insinuating that it's all done for profit does wonders to support your contention that critics of the emergent movement are not small minded literalists speaking from pride, Kevin.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 23, 2008 7:24 PM
"Taking an entire group of people, lumping them into one category,"
What category?
"slapping a label on them"
What label?
"and accusing them of having no variance of belief or opinion,"
Little to no variance. If you could point me in the direction of real variance, I'll be happy to re-assess this claim. That said, for a group that prides itself on thinking independently, I don't see a lot of independent thought.
"and then insinuating that it's all done for profit"
What, with the books comment? That wasn't my insinuation. I said I have no problem with it.
"does wonders to support your contention that critics of the emergent movement are not small minded literalists speaking from pride, Kevin."
I don't know what my comments have to do with literalism or pride. My point is that the movement ought not consider itself to be above criticism, especially when they dispense it so liberally.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 24, 2008 2:42 PM
You have every right to your opinions, and I have no desire to argue with you. It just seems to me that you have little understanding of this movement that you are so very critical of. Or perhaps we've just had very different experiences with it, but your comments about emergents all being the same in belief and practice seems nothing short of ignorant to me, since the very foundations of the movement are a desire for a constructive dialogue and a mutual respect that will bring down the walls that have divided the church of Jesus Christ into umpteen hundred different sects and denominations. It is, therefore, by my experience, one of the most diverse movements in the history of the church.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 24, 2008 6:36 PM
Sorry Kevin, I forgot to answer your questions before I hit the enter button. The category and label I was referring to is "emergents". I think there are very few who would apply that or any label to themselves, beyond "Christian". You're putting a broad range of people into a box that they don't wish to be in.
As far as variance of belief, as I said before, your statements on this are puzzling to me, and I really don't know how to answer your question, except to turn it around and ask you to explain to me exactly what beliefs, opnions, etc.. that close to all "emergents" share that are so troubling to you.
You will probably go back to your statement about nearly all "emergents" being democrats, to which I would reply that, although I'm sure many to a majority of the people who you would put in the category of "emergents" do vote in a more liberal direction than those in the mainstream of the american evangelical church, they most likely wouldn't be interested in applying labels like "liberal" or "democrat" to themselves, thereby limiting their ability to think freely on a broad range of issues. They aren't being dishonest as you seem to be implying, they simply look at these issues in a less black-and-white manner than you do.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 24, 2008 6:51 PM
Many of the "emergents" I run into actually tend to be more anarchistic in their politics than Democrat.
Posted by: carl copas | February 24, 2008 9:24 PM
"You have every right to your opinions, and I have no desire to argue with you."
Well, that is precisely what you are doing.
"The category and label I was referring to is "emergents"."
This is a pet peeve of mine about this movement. Emergents frequently cite the term to define their movement, but when I use it, I am labelling. Isn't that all a bit pedantic?
"It is, therefore, by my experience, one of the most diverse movements in the history of the church."
I don't know what your experience is. But, as I said, if you can point me to any source of real dissent within the movement, I'd be interested to take a look.
"what beliefs, opnions, etc.. that close to all "emergents" share that are so troubling to you."
Well, first there is the tendency to anticipate the answers to questions before they have been provided. More importantly, I would cite the endless hemming and hawing over labels. I get that you don't want to be mis-characterized, but I see no scriptural basis for this obsession with self-image.
If people want to call those who adhere to emergent doctrine-or-lack-thereof-or-in-between-or-however-I-have-to-word-it-so-that-I-am-not-accused-of-labelling, "emergents", why is it that big of a deal. Why do you devote so much time to it?
I think it speaks to what I perceive to be a bit of navel-gazing on the part of the movement (or non-movement's) adherents (or non-adherents). They are fascinated with questions of who they are and what their movement represents, and why it is better than other movements. Again, I don't see any resonance between this demeanor and the New Testament church.
I also find hubris in your contention that I think in "black and white" while you think in color. Nobody fancies himself a binary thinker. Once we have established that you find yourself to achieved a higher level of thinking than I have, you are not dialoguing, but rather educating and, as a result, condescending.
"do vote in a more liberal direction than those in the mainstream of the american evangelical church,"
And mainstream America in general. Some leaders in the movement have already endorsed Barack Obama, and I won't hold my breath waiting for a McCain endorsement. If you generally vote for Democrats, I consider you a Democrat, though you may believe whatever you choose about any issue. Unlike some, I do not use simple political terms as pejoratives, and I have no problem with a generally liberal Christian group.
"They aren't being dishonest as you seem to be implying"
I think some of the leaders are, a bit. But for most, I think there is simply a desire not the be considered the answer to the religious right, because of all that would entail. I wouldn't go so far as to call it self-delusion, but again, it certainly reeks of conceit.
I understand that the aim of the movement (whatever you want to call it, or not call it) is to tear down walls. By my observation, it has had the opposite effect.
The solution would be to engage your critics, even (gasp) on their terms. Many of the criticisms are valid, or certainly have the potential to be if they aren't addressed. So address them. Don't worthy about my labels. I'm just a small-minded modernist anyway. The pertinent question is whether I have a point.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 12:38 AM
You have an underlying hostility and sarcasm that makes constructive dialogue a little difficult. Have you ever thought that maybe that's why so many of the "emergents" that you debate with end up getting upset, rather than it just being a matter of you being right and them being wrong?
I guess what we really need to establish is what constitutes an "emergent" to you? Where I come from it's not a denomination, there's no United Emergent Church down on first street, there's no centralization, there's no belief statements. Therefore, what an "emergent" is is a matter of individual opinion. If you create the category in your own mind and set for yourself the parameters of who's in and who's out, you shouldn't be surprised in the end if every "emergent" looks and sounds the same.
I have no doubt that you have no trouble finding bitter, disenfranchised Christians of a more liberal leaning who've found some freedom in the emerging stream of thinking, yet haven't let go of their anger and would love to engage you in some WWE style debate. However, if at any point you decide you'd like to lose the sarcasm and engage in some constructive dialogue, let me know.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 25, 2008 8:03 AM
"You have an underlying hostility and sarcasm that makes constructive dialogue a little difficult."
I have exhibited nothing of the sort. You are poisoning the well.
"Have you ever thought that maybe that's why so many of the "emergents" that you debate with end up getting upset, rather than it just being a matter of you being right and them being wrong? "
It has nothing to do with right and wrong. I cannot conceive of a single angle I could take to that will not result in me being labelled an angry, binary, small-minded thinker. This does not occur when I discuss theology with Calvinists, or Open-Theists, or even atheists, or those who adhere to other religions.
"I guess what we really need to establish is what constitutes an "emergent" to you?"
Do you really want to establish this, or do you want me to posit a definition so that you can discredit it and cite it as evidence of my small-mindedness. That might seem a hostile question, but how could I answer this question without making myself vulnerable to the charge? But here goes...
I would consider one who attends and emergent church or cohort with regularity to be emergent. I would also consider one who generally agrees with emergent leaders such as Tony Jones or Brian McLaren to be emergent. I would consider those who regularly visit emergent village (that's not the name I gave it by the way) and participate regularly in that dialogue and generally agree what is said there to be emergent.
"you shouldn't be surprised in the end if every "emergent" looks and sounds the same."
For the third time, feel free to point me in the direction of the dissent. I am asking you to illuminate me, and assuage me of my self-fulfilling definition. What do you think is emergent, and how does that differ (or not) from the author's definition.
"yet haven't let go of their anger and would love to engage you in some WWE style debate. "
I dunno. This dialogue has been pretty representative of the whole, thus far. I'm all for constructive dialogue, and when someone accuses me (albeit indirectly) of being inauthentic and disinterested in the true meaning of scriptures, and those in agreement accuse me of being hostile, angry, etc... Your vision of constructive dialogue becomes impossible when you become a scold.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 12:03 PM
Like I said before, I have no interest in having an argument. I like to take the advice of Greg Boyd, one of those dreaded emerging church leaders, who once said "If being right becomes more important than ascribing insurpassable worth to a person, do the kingdom of God a favor and shut up."
It's obvious that we've had very different experiences with the emerging church. I'm from a rural area, not exactly a hotbed of emergent thought, and the church I attend on a weekly basis would never be confused for an emergent type of church. I do, however, see a need for something of a reformation within the modern american evangelical church, and I really like alot of the conversations that have sprung up from within the emerging church, however you wish to classify it. I'm sorry your experiences with it have been less than positive.
One thing to remember, I think, is that there is no such thing as a perfect movement, because every movement consists of imperfect people. There is, however, a perfect God, and He's the one that will have the final say.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 25, 2008 12:39 PM
"I like to take the advice of Greg Boyd, one of those dreaded emerging church leaders,"
Boyd is not emerging. He has explained his theology of open-theism in exhaustive detail, and describes Woodland Hills as an evangelical mega-church. But yes, continue taking advice from Boyd.
I am not asking for a perfect movement, but rather a movement that readily seeks to remedy its imperfections rather than criticize those who observe them. Sine's post was indicative of the latter tendency.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 1:36 PM
I think the problem in a lot of these discussions is with the different meanings between "emerging" and "emergent." Emergent is an actual organization with an identifiable agenda that networks various conversation partners from evangelical, post-evangelical, and non-evangelical sources. The point is to appreciate voices from all streams of Christianity and move beyond binary left and right categories. Emergent, I think, tries to function as a kind of bridge that (hopelessly) tries to be inclusive of evangelical and mainline Protestants. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox couldn't care less about it and see it as the end result of a broken Protestantism... at least the one's I've talk to.
The "emerging" label is more representative of what might be called the "postconservative" stream of Christian thought that tries to move away from the Reformed Calvinism and revivalism of evangelicalism of the last 50 years. Gone are the days of Billy Graham, but the likes of Piper, Grudem, Dever, and Mohler have helped to keep Calvinism afloat. Nevertheless, you have a movement emerging from a seeker-sensitive ideology that is tired of Rick Warren and George Barna strategies that attempts to emphasize discipleship, smaller gatherings, a community oriented ethos, non-partisanship, some theological innovation (i.e. open theism), racial reconciliation, greater freedom of female ministry, and environmental agendas. Emergent grows out of this soil, but they take on a more pluralistic attitude towards those that would be considered "liberal Christians" by self-identified evangelicals.
The difference is important. The former seeks a full adaptation to postmodernISM as an ideology that supposedly will rescue the church from falling into antiquity by means of deconstruction and post/anti-foundationalist epistemologies. The latter resides in postmodernITY as a cultural expression more or less historic Christianity that sees the Bible as a final authority on all matters of faith and practice, but comes to the text with a critical realism (or modest foundationalism). The former won't last, and the latter will carry on.
Posted by: Adam Omelianchuk | February 25, 2008 2:44 PM
Well, I did not know that. I guess you just taught me something. Does that mean you're being condescending?
I think this kind of shows the problem here. You state that Boyd is and Open-theist, as opposed to emergent. You take emergent as a theology, in competition with other theologies. I don't see it that way, and I don't mean to imply that I'm right and you're wrong, but I look at the emerging church as something of a unifying force that can live in concert with any theology, rather than just the latest theology to come along and compete with the old ones. From my point of view, it's fully possible for Boyd to be both "emergent", and and open-theist.
Personally, in thinking about the subject, I started to become familiar with emerging church concepts around two years ago, at a time when I was going through a bit of a faith crisis. I felt like I just was no longer conservative enough for the mainstream of the evangelical church, yet found mainline churches to be largely irrelevant and even a little too liberal. What I found in emerging church concepts was hope that I could move beyond this conservative/liberal rift, and hope that the church itself might soon follow. I guess what it comes down to is that I found comfort in knowing that I wasn't the only one that was feeling the way I was. I never looked at it as a new denomination or theology, but more like a yeast that was working it's way through the church as a whole, hopefully bringing it back together. So my concept of the "emerging church" may just be very different from yours, and I may well hate your concept of it as much as you do, but have simply not had the exposure to it that you have.
Posted by: Mike P. | February 25, 2008 2:45 PM
"I think this kind of shows the problem here. You state that Boyd is and Open-theist, as opposed to emergent. You take emergent as a theology, in competition with other theologies."
My point was the Boyd adheres to a strong, consistent doctrine. That IS in opposition to the emergent movement.
"I guess what it comes down to is that I found comfort in knowing that I wasn't the only one that was feeling the way I was. "
This is a normal impulse, and an understandable one. You have every right to look for new ways of expressing your faith, and to change your mind about certain issue. I came to the emergent church with a similar mindset.
The problem comes in assuming that this represents a progression on your part, such that those who continue to adhere to the "old" way are in need of enlightenment.
"I may well hate your concept of it as much as you do, but have simply not had the exposure to it that you have."
I think this might be the case.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 25, 2008 3:08 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?