My Thoughts On The Emerging Church

  Quien dijo sacapunta? 
  Originally uploaded by chomp.

Today there is a whirlwind of conversation in regards to the Emerging Church.  While it seems like some don't like the label (who likes labels) others don't seem to mind (as attested to the names of some books.)  You can find books helping you understand the Emerging Church, and you can find a wave of books critiquing the Emerging church. (Go to Amazon and just put in Emerging Church) You can find some leaders excited about the Emerging Church Movement, and others frightened about it, at least some aspects of it.  You can find blogs that talk positively about the Emerging Church and you can find blogs that are fully dedicated to analyzing, critiquing and and strongly disapproving of the Emerging Church (heresy is sometimes mentioned).  Theological Journals are talking about it, as well as mainline media, like CBS.  For those that haven't had time to fully engage in the conversation, and for those who have been asking me, here are my emerging thoughts on the Emerging Church. 

I have often been asked if I consider Kairos Los Angeles an Emerging Church, sometimes by friends, sometimes by journalist, like in the interviews I had with the LA Times and NY Times last year. My first question typically is, "What do you mean by Emerging Church?"

COMING TO TERMS WITH THE DEFINITION OF EMERGING CHURCH
Part of the difficulty is coming to terms with the Emerging Church.  What do people mean when they say those two words?  Any new movement it is hard to define.  Ask ten people the question:  What is the Emerging church and how many answers do you think you would get?  The term for many is nebulous.

Some, like Mark Driscoll, have latched onto Ed Stetzer's definition of the movement.  Discroll, in his recent article in the Criswell Theological Review: "A Pastoral Perspective of the Emergent Church,"  puts the Emerging Church in these three categories: 

Relevents - "are theologically conservative evangelical who are not interested in reshaping theology as much as updating things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures.  Their goal is to be more relevant; thus appealing to postmodern-minded people."

Reconstructionist - "are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). 

Revisionist - "are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world."

And while Driscoll expands slightly on these three definitions in his article, he doesn't seem to mind putting specific people into these boxes.  He seems to be fine with the first two groups, but "frightened" by the last.  He puts Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt in the last category.  Brian, a friend of mine, seems to be a lightening rod for much criticism.  (Some of the criticism seems unfair, some seems deserved.)  McLaren is also interviewed by the Criswell Theological Review , so if you want to hear him in his own words check it out.  Both Driscoll's article and McLaren's can be downloaded for free and are worth reading.  There are some good things to learn in both articles.

UNDERSTANDING THE EMERGING CHURCH
So how does a person try to either enter in or understand this conversation? (One that I believe to be important.)  Well, the first book that I would recommend to you would be Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger.  By my observation, most everybody that I know who identifies with this movement feels that this book best describes the movement.  It is a book authored by someone older and widely respected - Eddie Gibbs, and someone younger and very bright - Ryan Bolger.  They researched Emerging Churches from 2000 - 2005.

When I first read the book I was blown away, because I felt it was the first time that I heard a definition of the Emerging Church that I felt fully comfortable identifying with, because they essentially defined the movement around 9 practices.  Three core practices and 6 that unfold from those three.  And while the first three are imperative for any church they considered "emerging," not all nine were.

The three core practices are:

1. Identifying with the life of Jesus
2. Transforming secular space
3. Living as community

The six that flow from those three are:

1. Welcoming the stranger
2. Serving with generosity
3. Participating as producers
4. Creating as created beings
5. Leading as a body
6. Merging ancient and contemporary spiritualities

While these nine practices where the focus of the book, the other vital thing that they mentioned were the theologians that have shaped the movement.  They mentioned a number of people including - N.T. Wright, Leslie Newbigin, Dallas Willard, David Bosch and John Yoder. 

After reading this book, and based on its definition, I had no problem identifying with these core practices and core theologians, because over the last six years as I have engaged with N.T. Wright, Leslie Newbigin, Dallas Williard, John Yoder, as well as many other theologians that have shaped this movement.  (I have a list of theologians that have deeply shaped me in one way or another on the right margins of my blog under Theologian Index.) As a result, my theology has deepened profusely and become much more meaningful. 

I don't think that I fit into any of the boxes that Driscoll seems to like, and I am much more shaped by the core theologians, than by any of the faddish dimensions that one might find in the continuum of those who consider themselves part of the Emerging Church.

MY ADVICE TO YOU
So my advice to you if you want to really understand the Emerging Church at it's best, go to some of the primary sources, like Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger's book.  Check out Andrew Jones's blog at tallskinnykiwi's and Andrew Perriman's blog that he hosts at opensourcetheology.  More importantly, go to some of the core theologians who are shaping many in this movement and seriously engage with them.   I leave you with with some wise words from someone you know, (from reading or watching certain movies.)  They are words from the introduction that C.S. Lewis wrote to St. Athanasius On the Incarnation.  It is a short but rich introduction that I would encourage everybody to read.

Lewis says at the beginning, "There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read by the professionals, that the amateur should content himself with modern books.  Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he things of doing is take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium.  He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said.  The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility.  The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face.  He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him.  But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.  The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism.  It has always therefore been one of my main endeavors as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but it is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire."

One of the main points of the article is that we should be people who read primary sources.  And though in this introduction, his reference to primary sources are historical in nature, I would say as a means of application, if you want to understand the Emerging Church movement, (because it is so young) read the Emerging Churches book by Gibbs and Bolger and then read some of the core theologians. Not only that, but engage in some of the core practices as well.  Before long, who knows, you might find yourself becoming Emergent, but I doubt that you will fully identify with any of the boxes that Driscoll pointed out; for while boxes can be helpful to understand, they never quite fit reality.  I think if you engage in the emergent conversation, more than fitting into a box, you will probably find yourself more free.  That is not to say that one should engage in this conversation with uncritical acceptance, I am a firm believer in critical openness, as defined in a previous post.

Comments

[RC of strangeculture]

I relly enjoyed your thoughtful and thorough post...it was very easy to follow.

--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com

[Kristie R.]

Hey JR,
I thank you too, for sharing your thoughts. You probably realize this, but Scott McLain (www.slimcontact.blogspot.com) and Greg Larson currently attend Solomon's Porch and would be great resources for anyone wondering about Doug Pagitt...I checked out an Easter service there Sunday night and thought it was an *awesome* experience.

And forgive me if I missed it, but did you actually say if you consider Kairos to be part of the Emerging church? From what I gather, your answer would be..."sort of"???
:)

[Ryan Bell]

Great analysis, JR. I still haven't read Gibbs and Bolger's book but I intend to. I've heard nothing but good stuff. I think there are many churches like yours and I hope, mine, that are trying to focus on substance over form, though both are important. I share your feeling that Driscoll is pretty narrow in his options. I read the articles from Criswell and found Driscolls to be of limited helpfulness.

[J.R. Woodward]

Kristie,

Good question. You are wise to notice what I did and did not say. Is Kairos LA an Emerging Church? I would say that it depends on how you define Emerging Church.

I still think there are many definitions out there, which makes it a difficult question to answer. Does that make sense?

If you were to go by Driscoll's definition, we wouldn't really fit into his boxes and how he defines things. We would not fit well with the way other good men have defined the movement either. These people obviously have a voice in the Christian world, so to say we are an Emerging Church when there are various and wide ways to define it only creates confusion and has the possibility of taking us off our focus. I think this is one of the natural things that happen when a movement is more flat and less defined. There are some negative effects to that.

On the other hand, Gibbs and Bolger defined Emerging Churches more by key practices and key theologians. I would be fine to say that we fit more into the way they define the Emerging Church. We definitely identify with the 3 core practices and most all of the 6 practices that flow from those. So if you are talking about core practices (like Gibbs and Bolger mention) and core theologians, (like the ones that are listed on my theologian index,) then call us an Emerging Church.

What I would say is that I have been enjoying the conversation. I do not identify with everything that is happening in the big umbrella of the Emerging Church. And often I don't like any kind of labels, especially nebulous ones.

I think I would first like Kairos and the churches we plant to be known as practicing churches, equipping churches, missional churches and incarnational churches. Churches that bring the goodness of God neighborhood by neighborhood. But I'm okay with Emerging Church if defined properly. I hope that answers your question.

Ryan,

I'm totally with you on form. My thinking is that our theology greatly affects our form and I don't think that form is neutral.

[Kristie R.]

Cheers! Now it's all laid out in black and white. :) Thanks for your addendum! Looking forward to being back in the Kairos circle in less than two months...!

[Jason Hesiak]

Speaking of form...the Architect here...I like what JR said, that form is not neutral. It's easy to forget when you start talking about a hierarchy of substance over form that comes out of the lessons from the Enlightenment and before. "The medium is the massage". It's imnportant to remember, however, that form "massages" our theology also, whether we realize it or not. They are connected in such a way that you can't say that the line from cause to affect only happens in one direction. It's why, for example, John Eldridge said once that "his athiesim had been exposed" when he reacted to a certain situation in his life in a way that didn't reflect God, even though he "believes in God". A simple example from a guy who doesn't really know all that much about all this "Emerging Church" stuff. But wanted to put that thought out there...I feel its important. Belongs to the picture of our quest toward Holyness - "whole-ness".

The whole of the creation interacts as and in the One who made it. To say that substance/theology "determines" form, but that form doesn't have any determinatino of substance/theology is to say that the one actually REIGNS over the other. But the kingdom that is coming is the kingdom of God, and you can't correlate God with "substance" any more than with "form". But both are "in" God and, because of that, strive to bear his likeness in some way. When I say "strive to bear his image" in relation to man made things, I am obviously not talking about things that directly "bear his image" the way "man" is said to do in scripture. But I am talking about things that are "made by man", and are an "extension of man's being", which itself bears God's image.

I guess saying that substance only effects form is kinda like if we have a God moment on the cross, are called to action, but then fail to obey. The form that our life then takes then turns and affects us inwardly, and begins to itself speak to us, give us messages in ways that contradict that calling from God that we had for freedom. Conversely, if we obey the call from within, the form that our life takes itself becomes a praising voice to God, and people hear it. "Knowledge is power" will mean hyocracy (it's happened to me).

[scott mclain]

Woodward

good comments. Thanks for expounding. I'll still be interviewing you when things come around. I am still in fundraising mode on the film.

I would have to say that I think Doug is indeed pretty "revisionist" so I think it's a fair claim to level. But not nearly as much as other people I've run accross. It's amazing that when people try to take things to that higher level - that one where he wasn't exactly going to, someone will and he'll be like "uh.. that's not exactly what I was saying, but ok" .. it's an interesting thing, this conversation of God, faith, Christ and scripture. I am looking forward to seeing how my studying goes for this project once I get it underway. I am looking forward to it.

Peace to you

Scott

[andrew jones]

hey - good post and thanks for the link.

[AJ]

I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this, JR. As well, I think your exhortation to read and engage with the primary theologians is right on the money.

I'm posting this page to del.icio.us as a helpful primer on "emerging church."