The first three promised posts on the Emerging Movement, on Praxis, Protest, and Postmodernity, evoke a final post on the positives. There has been some justifiable criticism of the Emerging Movement for its constant criticism, though I think from the beginning the criticism has been matched (and sometimes outdone by) creative resolutions. So, today I want to focus on what the Emerging Movement is for. Let me count the ways.
The EM is pro-missional in thrust. The term “missional” is a favorite among many in the EM because it goes beyond the older Christian terms like “mission” and “missionary,” and because it is being defined holistically. To be missional means to embrace a holistic gospel – it is for the whole person (heart, soul, mind, and strength), for the whole society (politics, economy, culture, environment), and for the whole world. Missional avoids the constant bantering between Evangelicals and Liberals over social justice and evangelism, and it avoids the 20th Century political theorists regular diatribes against colonialism. Just what that “mission” is also quite clear for the EM if rarely defined in detail: the mission is the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus.
Saying the community is missional is to say that the task of the community of faith is to perform the gospel in such a way that the gospel is seen and experienced through that community. The EM worries about a rational theology that is not shaped by personal theology, and the EM invites its gatherers to be Christians, to be followers of Jesus, and to let others see the gospel in action. The gospel is to be performed as well as proclaimed. Evangelism then takes on the sense that the local community is the “advocate” of the gospel rather than simply an individual with a tract in hand. There is a strong conviction that people come to faith because they have come to see the gospel and experience the gospel because they have grown to trust and love others who live that gospel out in their daily life.
The EM is happy to let the following line of thinking in the New Testament shape its entire “missional” focus: the themes of the Magnificat of Mary in Luke 1, the themes of Jesus’ inaugural sermon in Luke 4, the themes of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5—7, the re-statement of Jesus’ mission to John the Baptist in Matthew 11, and the descriptions of the early Jerusalem community in Acts 2—4 are enough: that, the EM would say, is the Kingdom vision of Jesus and that, they contend, ought to be the missional focus of every local church.
And when the EM thinks of missional it thinks of a community being missional: it is not about Lone Ranger activities but of an entire community “incarnating” (another favorite term) a missional gospel in a local way. But “community” is also an important term because “community” can easily be blended with the local (non-church) community so that the walls between the “church” community and the “local” community are permeable. This, too, is part of being missional.
A final feature of the EM concern with being missional is this: the mission of the Christian community is to discover the “mission” of God in that local community and participate in that work of God. There is a robust humility in this view: the EM avoids thinking it is the “right” people surrounded by a majority of “wrong” people and instead knows that only God is “right” and it is the task of the human to find what right work God is doing and participate in God’s work. This big, big sense of God’s work is usually expressed by referring to Jesus’ “Kingdom” language, but at times appeal is made to Romans 8:18-25 or to Revelation 21—22 and other such cosmic redemption texts. What all this means is that redemption is holistic rather than just spiritual.
Second, the EM is pro-Jesus. This may sound cute but it isn’t. It can be said that the EM is theologically driven by a reactoin to the sort of theology that flowed from the ancient creeds into the Reformation and from the Reformation into the present Evangelical culture. And that theology is often abstract, systematic, and rooted in logic and reason. The EM wants to root its theology, which is more practical than it is theoretical, in the incarnate life of Jesus himself. It wants a theology that is shaped by personhood and relationship rather than just rationality and systemic thinking. (Let’s not use simplistic dichotomies; instead, this is an issue of emphasis.)
So, the EM focuses on the life of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus and anchors what it does and believes in Jesus. The rest of the New Testament and Bible are read through the lens of the Kingdom vision of Jesus. When it thinks about politics, it goes to Jesus; when it comes to global relations, it goes to Jesus; when it thinks about economics and life-style issues, it goes to Jesus; when it thinks about racial tensions, it goes to Jesus. This radical orientation to Jesus’ Kingdom vision, so characteristic of the Anabaptist movement, shapes everything I have observed in the EM.
Third, the EM is pro-Church. To make this claim requires some nuance and some careful thinking. The EM is pro-Church more than it is critical of the Church, and it is plenty critical. The EM is both post-Evangelical and post-Liberal churches but that critical stance over against the Church “as it has been done” is not left dangling. The EM is pro-Church in that it is ecumenical. It is not ecumenical in the classical sense of the Ecumenical Movement, which was set on a course of finding a doctrinal basis among sets of Christians who could not agree, but in the sense of being missionally focused. Because it is missionally focused, it finds it much easier to cooperate with other Christians with a similar missional focus and to cooperate with other Christians because its own theological agendas are less central.
Central to this sense of being missional is the Christian life itself, and the EM is exploring the great Christian traditions about Christian spirituality and spiritual formation. One finds them quoting Brother Lawrence as well as Gregory of Nyssa, Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila, John Stott and Henri Nouwen. A very good book along this line is by the National Coordinator, Tony Jones, called The Sacred Way and he draws deeply from the entire, ecumenical Church tradition on spirituality. The EM, because it is not shackled by denominational worries, finds fruit in the whole Garden of Eden, that is, the Church.
It is also pro-Church in that the Church is designed to be a community. Here again, the EM reminds one of the Anabaptists or the Jesus movement of the 60s and 70s, where Christian communities grew out of a radical commitment to the Church as a community. For the EM, while it shows similarities to these early Christian experiments (some of them quite successful, like Reba Place in Evanston Illinois), community is more missionally-driven than (as was the case with many of the Christian communities) fellowship-oriented. And, as was mentioned above, the community emphasis is a community that seeks to blend with the local community into a harmonious effort to realize the ideals of the Kingdom of God.
Once again, this pro-Church community focus leads us back to its local expression. The EM’s focus on Church is not on ecclesiastical structures or denominational politics, but on a local church community of faith incarnating the kingdom vision of Jesus in its local community for the good of the world. There is more to be said: the EM is openly and centrally-concerned with the Christian faith as something personal at the local and deepest level. The whole person is to be challenged, and this includes the popularity of story-telling as a feature of EM worship and preaching (which itself is undergoing its own emergence). Story-telling invites both the preachers and those gathered to be authentic and tell the truth about their own story.
Which leads to yet another element of this pro-church focus: it is a regular feature of the emerging movement to claim that the present generation values relationships and authenticity. This is probably true, but none has exploited this more for church ministry than John Burke at Gateway Community Church, in Austin Texas, in his book No Perfect People Allowed: Creating a Come as You are Culture in the Church. Here is an exposition of the features of authenticity and how those features have shaped a vibrant and growing church. One of his comments is this approach allowed them to “start a church out of the culture rather than for the culture” (303), and this permits a culture that is trusting and tolerant and humble about truth while it works with folks who are broken and alone. Gateway manifests much that is good in the EM. (I have no idea if John Burke would call himself “emerging” or not, and it doesn’t matter to me for it is the vision he articulates that resonates with the EM.)
Fourth, the EM is pro-culture. This characteristic has been the favorite target of criticism by the more conservative theological dimension of the Church. Again, several features of this pro-culture stance emerge. The EM is pro-culture in that it often announces that it is either postmodern or concerned with the postmodern generation. Postmodernity, if you have followed any of the discussion, is nearly impossible to define. Essentially, the postmodern turn is the belief that “metanarratives” (large stories that put the world together for us) are no longer viable because there is no way to prove them by reason or scientific method. Every one and every group is entitled to a metanarrative. This postmodern turn does not so much deny the value of a metanarrative as much as it contends none of them can be proven to be true without faith in the metanarrative. The EM tends to celebrate the demise of metanarratives, finding in this demise the opportunity for “micro”narratives of local communities to given a hearing.
Some EM thinkers toy with agreeing and not agreeing with this understanding of postmodernity and suggest that the Christian faith is one such “metanarrative” that can’t be proven true. Well, there is something dangerous and something healthy in such a claim. It is dangerous if it means Christian faith is just a preference rather than the truth, but it is healthy if it means (as many Christian theologians think it does) that Christians have to accept their fallenness and their limited grasp of truth and live with less than certainty on many issues.
Finally, the EM is pro-sensory worship. This is perhaps one of the most notable features that many know about. It may be a direct influence of Dan Kimball, in his Emerging Worship, or the influence of Robert Webber, but many in the EM form and shape worship services (“gatherings” to use their term) in order to foster sensory experience in worship. In doing so, they draw from deep and ancient Christian traditions. Candles, incense, darkness, labyrinths, physically acting out various features of the Christian message and experience, even dead silence are some of the specific features of EM worship. Why? Because it is believed that both the human is a whole (heart, soul, mind, and body) and the postmodern world resonates with full-form experiences. Here again the missional focus is prominent as is the coming into contact with the ancient traditions of the Church, and one such feature is the use of lectio divina, or communal reading of Scripture, meditating on that text, and then praying through that text in the context of a community. An important word here for EM worship is participation: the EM worship opposes seeker-friendly entertainment-oriented weekend services and calls for a smaller, more intimate, and participatory form of worship.
So, here is my read of the Emerging Movement: praxis, protest, postmodernity, and pro-aplenty.
posted November 3, 2005 at 11:46 am
Scott, thanks for this series of posts. They are wonderfully articulate and I will be steering many folks to your site.
posted November 3, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Scot, I think that much of what you described here is old news.
The EM is pro-missional in thrust.
Yes, so are most churches, particularly those that hold the Gospel as central to their efforts.
So, the EM focuses on the life of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus and anchors what it does and believes in Jesus.
You’ve just described the “thrust” of the Reformation, subsequent revivals and movements (including the now fading ‘seeker sensitive’ movement). For that matter, this “is” Christianity and has always been so and I think most denominations profess that they strive to this end. The problem has been in the execution and dedication to this profession, which I think is problem across the spectrum regardless of movement or denomination.
Fourth, the EM is pro-culture. This characteristic has been the favorite target of criticism by the more conservative theological dimension of the Church. Again, several features of this pro-culture stance emerge.
Here is where I see the true distinction. It has been the target of criticism because if you attempt to assimilate the Gospel into culture and/or place it along side of it, it isn’t the Gospel any longer. The Gospel is directly opposed to culture in the sense that it opposes the wisdom of the world on all levels, including a necessity to assimilate itself to culture (i.e. 1 Cor. 1:15-31).
Scot, I’ve noticed a lack of biblical citation in many of your assertions here, which is a bit disturbing. There is a reason that many are concerned the Emergent Movement and much of it centers on its claims to be in keeping with the Gospel, but little biblical defense is given to this end – at least as far as I have seen. Could you at least reference a verse or two as to why the EM should move forward and/or is in keeping with the Gospel?
In doing so, they draw from deep and ancient Christian traditions. Candles, incense, darkness, labyrinths, physically acting out various features of the Christian message and experience, even dead silence are some of the specific features of EM worship. Why? Because it is believed that both the human is a whole (heart, soul, mind, and body) and the postmodern world resonates with full-form experiences.
And the experience therefore trumps proclaiming the mere, plain truth of the Gospel? I understand what you’re saying but there needs to be balance here. Which is more important: professing truth upon each opportunity given, or distracting one’s self as to how it may resonate with the hearer? I believe how the message is heard, no matter how poorly delivered, is the responsibility of the Spirit and will be used by God according to the purposes of his will – whether one presents the most compelling argument or not.
Brad
posted November 3, 2005 at 2:37 pm
If EM is all this then I’m in. Just like I’m into Augustine, Desert Fathers, Cistercians, Puritans, Calvin, Luther, Simons, Zinzendorf, Whitfield, Wesley, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Ellul, CS Lewis, King Jr., Oscar Romero, Toyohiko Kagawa, Brother Yun, etc.
Doxology transforms orthodoxy straightens orthopraxy (I’ve been crafting this sentence for a while now).
Zechariah saw Jerusalem as a city without walls. Interesting, that he saw that in the Spirit as Nehemiah was fighting and rebuilding. When the EM become jealous for the glory of God, their influence will supernova (wall of fire). So far, it seems to me that EM are more jealous for a new ecclesiology. I for one won’t settle for a new church with all it’s re:imaginings. I want Christ…and his dynamite power is always going outward (enthusiastically) into His world. Most EM stuff I read is like the author is talking and there is a lit stick of dynamite in his back pocket.
“So…what are you trying to say author/speaker?”
“Oh, well… you’ll see in a moment.”
One thing is for sure, EM has been kicking the western Church in the seat of the pants. And I like that.
posted November 3, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Brad, The Reformation and what is inherited from it has had its base primarily from Paul’s writings- generally lacking in teaching from Jesus and the gospels- and certainly in emphasis. (Exception is the Anabaptists who really were not Reformers, but wanted to form a church based on Scripture and not just a reformed Roman church.)
More later perhaps on what you wrote, though others may add and explain it much better.
posted November 3, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Brad, the gospel of the kingdom is a critique of culture but doesn’t trash culture- but redeems it. If it is redemptive (granted some things can’t be redeemed in culture), than it is the church that must be involved in that redemptive activity of God.
It is easier to simply oppose culture, but God’s work is to make all things new in Jesus- and the kingdom of God in Jesus begins now with us as his people.
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Brad and others,
Please keep in mind that in this series I have done my best to be a “journalist” as much as a confessional person, and I’m trying to describe how I see the Emerging Movement as fairly as possible.
I’d prefer not to be called on the carpet for things I am not explicitly contending for as something I believe in.
And, as for biblical references, it would not be hard to do and therefore it is unnecessary — I use Bible when I am making my case for things, but neither am I persuaded the blogsite is the easiest place to begin an exegetical discussion. I see the blogs that do that, and I sense that mostly they are hard to follow and in need of more extensive documentation.
This, however, not to say that I’m not excited about the possibilities of the EM.
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Brad, the gospel of the kingdom is a critique of culture but doesn’t trash culture- but redeems it. If it is redemptive (granted some things can’t be redeemed in culture), than it is the church that must be involved in that redemptive activity of God.
Did you mean this in terms of the redeemed? Otherwise, speaking in terms of the general culture of the world…
The Gospel is the redemption of the individual children of God whom God has called according to the purposes of his will (Ephesians 1, Romans 9), it isn’t the redemption of culture. Culture can be affected, but only as the residual effect of God working through his children.
Brad
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:26 pm
I’d prefer not to be called on the carpet for things I am not explicitly contending for as something I believe in.
Ah, my mistake, sorry. You should know then that some of your “fans” around the blogosphere are putting words in your mouth.
And, as for biblical references, it would not be hard to do and therefore it is unnecessary — I use Bible when I am making my case for things, but neither am I persuaded the blogsite is the easiest place to begin an exegetical discussion.
So it is only necessary if it is hard to do?
Anyway, I disagree, particularly if you are going to make/entertain an argument about the mission of the church in the context of what Christ and his apostles actually contended for and want to be treated seriously in such a context.
I understand what you are saying in terms of a full exegesis, but I wasn’t asking for that, I was only looking for a reference or two, which can be done simply -such as (Romans 1:1) – so that a biblical context could be framed in light of what is being contended for concerning the church.
Brd
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Brad, the gospel is good news that, yes, as you well say has to do with the redeemed children of God. But it doesn’t stop there. It includes all things (Col 1:20).
The good news of God’s kingdom embraces all of life on earth. The OT prophets critique culture, especially Israel’s culture. And Jesus’ sermon on the mount is speaking of a society that is to be salt and light on earth.
I think salvation in terms of right relationship to God by individuals is certainly crucial and fulfills God’s promise to Abraham that through him and his seed all peoples will be blessed. But the good news is also in terms of our relationship to each other (first and great commandment and second like it from Jesus) and our relationship to God’s earth in terms of responsibility. This includes culture and can be, for example with reference to the leavening influence we can have in difficult places where systemic evil holds people down in poverty and oppression. This concern is throughout Scripture- OT psalms and prophets, NT as in Luke, James. And in Acts the church is nothing less than an alternative community in the world- a new way to be human- in Jesus.
Yes, people need to be reconciled to God through Jesus (2 Cor), but to be thoroughly Biblical even in this life, I believe we must not stop there. And the emergents, for deficiencies that they have (and we all have them) are right in their concern here, I believe.
Brad, thanks for your forthrightness and your grace.
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:51 pm
…that blessing I mentioned- that in Abhm and his seed all peoples will be blessed- itself is more than just individual salvation and results in shalom- God’s kingdom changing all of life and bringing blessing in every sphere- ultimately.
posted November 3, 2005 at 3:56 pm
that blessing I mentioned- that in Abhm and his seed all peoples will be blessed- itself is more than just individual salvation and results in shalom- God’s kingdom changing all of life and bringing blessing in every sphere- ultimately.
Ted, so then you hold to the doctrine universalism? If not, you are back to square one and should investigate the full context of “blessing” per your reference.
Brad
posted November 3, 2005 at 4:21 pm
“that blessing I mentioned- that in Abhm and his seed all peoples will be blessed- itself is more than just individual salvation and results in shalom- God’s kingdom changing all of life and bringing blessing in every sphere- ultimately.”
Brad, no I don’t believe in universalism. Passages like Col 1:20 and Romans 5 (the end of it) are and have been misunderstood as teaching that all will be saved in the end- (and my words could be misunderstood that way as well).
But I don’t back down from what I said because I believe being the new Israel- the new people of God and following Jesus in this life is bringing to bear on this world God’s kingdom- and in doing so will subversively affect communities here and now in “down to earth” ways.
I know I’m very limited in ability and time. so sorry to all for deficiencies in what I’m trying to express.
posted November 3, 2005 at 4:27 pm
For sake of this blog I will end here.
I want to make clear that I believe that conversion to Christ of individuals (per 1 Cor 15, Rom 1, 3; 2 Cor 5) is essential and must be proclaimed and backed up by our lives. I am just trying to take into scope God’s will as revealed in Scripture in relation to us being his salt and light- even the Israel of God- here and now.
posted November 3, 2005 at 4:31 pm
But I don’t back down from what I said because I believe being the new Israel- the new people of God and following Jesus in this life is bringing to bear on this world God’s kingdom- and in doing so will subversively affect communities here and now in “down to earth” ways.
Ted, we agree on Israel and I share this view, I think I understand what you are driving at and I do find it interesting, in spite of my concerns.
Brad
posted November 3, 2005 at 5:12 pm
I want to thank you for these four posts. It is about the best concise description of have read. I think you have a very good read on what is happening.
posted November 3, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Brad, thanks for your comments back and forth with me today. It was good.
posted November 3, 2005 at 6:41 pm
This is a general comment on EM: so much wisdom to be gained by reading through where the Church has travelled these roads before: the changing theology touched by romanticism of the latter 19th c. UK church, a genuine cognate of EM (Henry Drummond & W. Robertson Nicoll)especially in its wanting to “meet Jesus by Galilee” rather than in a creed; the transcendentalists of earlier in that century (specifically their focus on the primary reality of the experiential); just recently the Church’s embracing culture as meaningful or even revelatory in the 1960′s (Newbigin has commented on this). Even more recently, Stanley Hauerwas on postmondernism. Anyway, as Ecc. says, “nothing new…”
EM is, de facto, a new denomination, despite cries to the contrary. Like Lewis’s picture of hell, EM just paced off a distance and built it’s own house. In ten years someone else will pace-off equidistant and do the same to EM. How is this service to a God of grace who died to build a Church? Every new generation building a petty kingdom on arrogance and historical ignorance.
posted November 3, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Eric, I attended the Emergent Convention in April. In one of the smaller group breakouts (300 people) the question we were asked how many of us were from mainline congregations fully 2/3 to 3/4 raised their hands. There are people who are very much in the Emergent Conversation that are still connected with a traditional church There are many who aren’t.
Also, you might want to check out the book by George Barna called “Revolution” just released this week. He estimates that there are 20 million people who have tuned out and dropped out of traditional settings in order to become MORE devoted to Christ. Barna finds a much more vitality and ministry happening among these folks than he does in the traditional institutional church. He expects that within a generation maybe one third of the people who have an active faith will still be involved with a church as we know it today.
I have a different history lesson for you. The 1500s saw the Roman Catholic Church disestablished as THE church. The 1700s say the disestablishment of church as state religion in the United States. The 1900s, in the US, we saw the disestablishment of Protestantism. Now we are witnessing the disestablishment of denominationalism.
I have been around the Emergent stuff for seven years. I don’t know where you get your EM as “de facto denomination,” but you might want to go back and take another look.
posted November 4, 2005 at 4:20 am
Brad,
On biblical references… when I’m describing a movement as an analysis of what is going on I see no reason to support each and every point with Bible. The accuracy depends on whether I am fair to the movement not whether it can support itself with the Bible. That’s another question, for another day. Sorry to be confusing. I was on my way out the door for a flight to Seattle. Now here.
posted November 5, 2005 at 1:35 am
Subversive Influence » The Emerging Church: Not Just Protest Anymore
[...] misanthropic malcontents… they actually stand for stuff as well. Technorati: Inlinks || EmergingChurch [...]
posted November 6, 2005 at 1:14 am
As a pastor of a historically conservative, fairly traditional, denominational church that has been slowly moving towards a more holistic, missional church over the past 3 years I say thank you for your fair, and irenic, explanation of the EM. I have long been captivated by the concepts embraced by the EM and I am excited about the opportunity to continue to grow in Christ and lead our people to a more missional approach to life. Your posts have been very helpful for me as I explain to others my interest in the EM. I have already begun encouraging people to read and respond to your posts. Thank you!
posted November 7, 2005 at 8:17 am
Very interesting thread!
[i]Which is more important: professing truth upon each opportunity given, or distracting one’s self as to how it may resonate with the hearer?[/i]
I don’t see how the latter is necesarily a distraction of the truth.
[i]I believe how the message is heard, no matter how poorly delivered, is the responsibility of the Spirit and will be used by God according to the purposes of his will – whether one presents the most compelling argument or not.[/i]
I disagree here. Even if you’re right, you’re wrong if you’re not humble. If the truth is preached without humility it is of no use. If you don’t live it, then all the Bible-bashing in the world will only continue to alienate those who need to see it the most in me.
David
Vancouver, BC
posted November 7, 2005 at 9:41 am
David,
I’m not sure whom you are quoting. Help us out inasmuch as this thread is now an older one.
posted November 8, 2005 at 10:40 am
Thanks, Scot, for this excellent series.
I’ve summarized it (by excerpting quotes here and there) at VanguardChurch.
People who are still skeptical of the Emerging Church Movement need to read this series!
-Bob
posted November 8, 2005 at 2:01 pm
After reading the series of artlcles (What is the Emerging Church)I am more convinced than ever this is not only an accurate description of the EM, but it gives clarity to the critics (critics will now have more detail to criticize). I have been for over two years now going through the “deconstruction” of long held Christian belief systems and structure and have begun the process of “reconstructing” my thoughts and values. It truly is an amazing journey! There are times when I feel like a new believer all over again. Deconstructing is difficult for a pastor of 20 years and a long time Southern Baptist!
Once I got past the feelings of betrayal, I began to enjoy the journey. The local church I shepherd here in the midwest is also discovering the EM and the joy of rediscovery! Thanks Scot for being articulate and honest in your description and analysis of the EM!
posted June 26, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Pooh’s Think » Blog Archive » Scott McKnight: What Is the Emergent Church?
[...] Here’s one interesting take on defining the Emergent Church. [...]
posted July 14, 2006 at 9:55 am
The Philosophical Pastor » Blog Archive » Holy Implosion Batman
[...] Reading Scott McKnight’s post yesterday I was captured by this little phrase radical commitment to the Church as a community (scroll down and you’ll find the phrase in the middle of paragraph 11) [...]