What is the Emerging Church? Pro-Aplenty

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

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.

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.

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

...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.

"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.

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

Brad, thanks for your comments back and forth with me today. It was good.

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.

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!

David,
I'm not sure whom you are quoting. Help us out inasmuch as this thread is now an older one.

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!