Oct
18
My Thoughts on the Emerging Church
Filed Under Blog
It seems everywhere I go and speak these days people ask me the same question. It is, in some form or another, a version of this: Are you part of the emerging church? If they ask it another way it may be are you Emerging or Emergent? The letter “T” has become very important to them.
My common reply is; We seem to get put in the camp of Emerging, so I suppose we are.
Then the questions move to what the Emerging church believes about this or that. To which I reply the same things Baptists believe about it.
They scratch their head, think about what I have said and then ask, Which Baptist?
To which I reply, “exactly”.
The truth is we don’t know what exactly the emerging church will become. There is a great effort to try to divide it up into categories. I suppose I understand that desire from the vantage point of good people who simply are trying to understand what is going on out there among Christians and they need to have it broken down for them.
The problem I see with the categories, however, is that they appear like a helpful tool but it’s just not that cut and dry. There are no teams yet. They may be forming but there are a lot people just getting into the game, or showing up at practice or just signing up to play.
The danger that I see is that people, particularly Americans love to quickly categorize people so they can either turn them into a celebrity or a demon. We really don’t want to read what they have written or take the time to get to know them. We simply want to know what category they fit in so we can pronounce our judgment if we disagree with them or subscribe to their podcast if we like what they said.
These categories are going to turn out to be very harmful to the church. The emerging church has not been around for very long. There are some beautiful expressions that are sprouting up all over the place, they are organic works of the Spirit of God living in and through the life of his followers. We should be very cautious to squelch this. It is a young and fragile thing that if we fail to create a safe context for it to grow it will either shrivel up and die, or become high jacked by the more mature plants and therefore will not really be a fresh move of God at all.
This is a new thing that God is doing and we should respect it as such. When we force the emerging church to define themselves in order to put them into camps it is the equivalent of telling a ten year old to declare what his major in college is going to be. Telling him that if he does not hurry up and figure it out, then there is no telling where he will end up. We are essentially scaring the hell out of him. Putting a yoke upon him that will crush all the life and creativity that is, by nature of being young, the thing we are all attracted to in the first place.
I don’t want to appear naive about what is going on. Some of the theological conversations in the emerging circles are of concern. What is great about this however is that we have 2000 years of orthodoxy to help us determine what heresy is. Our common cannon and creeds allow us to determine what the Gospel is and when we have departed from it. The further breakdowns of evangelical, protestant, Catholic, Anglican and Eastern orthodox break it down even further. When we move outside the boundaries of orthodoxy then we cease to be part of “the” church. It is the equivalent of that ten year old telling us that he wants to be a dragon when he grows up. We need to correct him and let him know thats not going to be possible. If he does grow up to think he is a dragon he will no longer be any good to anyone, just like a church that lives outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. Jumping around flapping your wings thinking your are breathing fire and sounding like a nut job.
Historical orthodoxy allows us to make sure that what does grow up in the emerging church does in fact grow up to be a part of “the” historical Christian church. If they grow up and leave the roots of orthodoxy thinking that somehow our cannon and creeds have bound them up in some sort of oppressive legalism they will simply be the equivalent of adult men bounding around trying to fly cursing the “oppressive” laws of gravity and winglessness.
In short there will be emerging churches and leaders who after emerging will in the end no longer be part of “the” historical church of Jesus Christ. We will know that because again, we have our cannon and creeds that tell us the core message about the Triune God. If we depart from that we move from Christian brother or sister to a harmful wolf.
The truth is though that for every one of those who grow up to be a useless “dragon”, there may be thousands who emerge to produce amazing new wine skins that will take the gospel to countless people who would otherwise not have heard it or seen it in action. There will be important contributions made to theological and ecclesiological work. However if we insist that this young emerging church declare their college major right now, we may be killing the very thing that God is doing by putting a yoke upon them that God did not ask them to carry, but was one that we invented out of the fear of what they might become.
It equally important that we help the emerging church grow up into “Adulthood” not “Dragons”, but as we do it is just as important that we give them space to grow up into what God is “emerging” in them. They need to know about the theological conversation that has been going on for two thousand years and just where those boundaries are between orthodoxy and heresy are.
As for me and Imago, we are part of this emerging movement of God, however we were on the front end. Those of us that have been at this for awhile now are far enough along on our trajectory. We are well on our way to being adult expressions of “the” historical church or to leaping about trying to be dragons. It is not us that I am primarily concerned with.
I feel a certain amount of responsibility to create space for what is coming up behind us. I have built my faith on the foundation of orthodoxy and the gospel of the reformers. I am grateful beyond measure to our great theologians. Yet I hope that we will add to that foundation for what God is emerging. I think there is a lot of room for theological progress. Not denying the foundation but building on it. The cultural questions we are wrestling with are not the same questions as Calvin and Luther or Edwards. The God that we believe in is.
That means there is much for us to learn from the dead men who are still speaking while we seek to find the theological truths that will be good news to our culture and their questions.
Given that, I hope that we can leave the next generation great theology on the Kingdom of God that seems to have gotten confused in the enlightenment. I hope that we can expand our theology of the Trinity from a static doctrine to a dynamic and living theology of community and transformation. I hope that we can shut up long enough to listen to the voices in the rest of the non-western world so we can learn from them a theology of suffering and sacrifice.
In the end I am most familiar with the American version of the emerging church, and as good Americans we tend to be pioneers who can build and out build the other guy. We are winners who do it bigger and better than anybody. But it may be just this that will cause us to miss the point of what God wants to emerge. Perhaps God is emerging something that is counter cultural to the way we have been doing it. He may be bringing about something that is seemingly small and insignificant but that will over time grow into something richer and fuller and more transformational than we have seen in some time.
We will never get to see it however, if we are impatient with the process, if we don’t have time or grace to allow it to emerge and if we insist that it be just like it always has been with newer logo’s and cooler hair cuts. If we do this then we may never get to see the very thing that God was doing.
In the end I hope that we don’t force this young church to hurry and grow up. I hope that they will find the sacred space to discover who God is calling them to be and imaginative new expressions of our historic Gospel will be set out on display. I hope that those young children that want to grow up to be dragons when they are older will get grounded in some good theology that sets them on a healthy road. And finally, I hope that those of us that have gone before them will not be so full of fear that we kill their vision and quench the Spirit, for I fear that we will have to answer for that one day.
[…] to grow 19Oct07 Emerging Grace has just pointed towards this great post from author and emerging congregation leader Rick McKinley. I’d not heard of Rick before, but his post is balanced and full of […]
Well said, thank you!
Excellent. There is simply way too much over-reactin to what is happening in the church across our country. It’s blind ignorance - if I don’t understand or if it’s different than my experience then it must be heretical. Amazing how this follows our discussion in Jude and 2 Peter…
I know I used to have a very legalistic view of the world and Christiandom years ago, but frankly I welcome this fresh work of the Spirit and echo the need to provide guidance, not walls, encouragement, not condemnation, and prayer instead of accusations.
[…] My Thoughts on the Emerging Church : Rick McKinley The truth is we don’t know what exactly the emerging church will become. There is a great effort to try to divide it up into categories. I suppose I understand that desire from the vantage point of good people who simply are trying to understand what is going on out there among Christians and they need to have it broken down for them. […]
Hi Rick - great reaction, great way to introduce the topic with the baptist quote - you are getting people thinking and you will not be boxed in- keep preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified and making a difference for him in this world - and that is what matters.
Blessings,
Cornelia Seigneur
Great post. I as well as you hope that we can be patient and allow God to move. Not to long ago I was scared of the EC but now I can see the hand of God in it all
I love the following quote by Dan Kimball
“I think we are crying wolf and attacking our own fellow sheep who happen to like experimenting in wearing their wool in different styles or like coloring their wool different colors, but they are not wolves - they are fellow sheep. But because they are not monotone white wooled all-the-same-look sheep, they get attacked as though they were a wolf.”
“However if we insist that this young emerging church declare their college major right now, we may be killing the very thing that God is doing by putting a yoke upon them that God did not ask them to carry, but was one that we invented out of the fear of what they might become.”
This is spot on! Very well said. Sadly, I do feel as if the American zeal for labels has already squelched this movement to some degree. Maybe it is not squelched for those who know it and understand it and will force themselves to move on in spite of those who criticize it. Still, there are clearly those out there, brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we could grow so abundantly had they not put up the barrier, and that saddens me. In so many ways I feel I have been through and even am still going through a divorce because so many people I love have walked away, unwilling to wait and see what God is going to do with the emerging aspect of in His church. Great post. Thanks
Thanks Rick. Your blessing is showing.
man, thanks so much for expressing this stuff so well. i was doing some net web surfing last night and i got really down about this whole thing. there are facebook hate groups that single out rob bell as the second coming of jim jones… web sites that slam mark driscoll for being himself and still other super-duper nut jobs who say that john piper is not a good enough baptist.
i’m going to go write a little blurb and link to this blog. these thoughts are well put and timely.
all the LORD’s best…
gary
p.s. as soon as this semester is over, i’m reading “this beautiful mess.” yee-haw.
[…] http://www.rickmckinley.net/2007/10/18/my-thoughts-on-the-emerging-church/ […]
Great blog Rick! I just linked up to it. Please keep tackling these issues. And I agree, we need to stop focussing on labels and focus on God.
tim kurek
http://UriahMinistries.wordpress.com
Then the questions move to what the Emerging church believes about this or that.
To which I reply the same things Baptists believe about it.
They scratch their head, think about what I have said and then ask, Which Baptist?
To which I reply, “exactly”.
——
To which I would follow up with, “No, seriously, which Baptists? Southern Baptists? Cooperative Baptists? American Baptists?”
The reason that the question “Which Baptists?” can even be asked is because particular Baptist churches have, in some way, distinguished themselves from other Baptist churches. I think the question that some are asking is, “What distinguishes an Emerging Church from a Non-Emerging Church?” If there can be no real answer in response to that question, then the term “Emerging” becomes meaningless.
Put another way, while it is unfair to ask a ten year old to declare what his major in college is going to be, it is not unfair to ask him which of his current classes he prefers and why. This distinctive might grant insight into what he will major in one day (assuming he even goes to college).
So… without forcing anyone into a major at age ten… what are the distinguishing marks of an Emerging Church?
I understand your point it is well said. At the same time it is still very difficult to define the distinguishing aspects. For some it is simply methodology. For others it is theological and practical. We have to remember that the term itself is simply referring to what is next or coming up it is a catch all phrase. There is no collective group of emerging leaders that are setting doctrine and practice for the whole. There are influential leaders who are having influence. There are loose networks, relationships, and partnerships. Many are still tied in with their denominations and most would agree that having 100 different Emerging church teams such as the Baptist do is not good for the gospel. So they will not be quick to define the team.
The larger question, in my mind that we should be concerned with is, “what are the marks of a healthy biblical missional church?” Theses are the key characteristics of any church and if Emerging churches don’t aspire to becoming a healthy biblical missional community then perhaps we are just making a lot of fuss over nothing.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is helpful for me to understand “Emerging” as a catch all phrase referring to what is coming up, and I do agree with your assessment—“There is no collective group of emerging leaders that are setting doctrine and practice for the whole.”
With that caveat, is there anything that you can identify as a unique sine qua non for Emerging Churches? Or, to come at it from another angle, could you identify for me a church (either actual or fictitious) that would NOT be considered “Emerging” and why?
I do appreciate the larger question of “What are the marks of a healthy biblical missional church?” I take it from the way this paragraph was phrased that you do not believe all Emerging Churches are necessarily missional. Is this a correct inference?
Again, thanks for your considerate reply to my previous questions. Please take these latest inquiries as a genuine quest for clarity and not as jabs meant to arouse conflict.
Great question. As I said, I think it is a catch all for a new movement of young pastors and leaders who are starting new expressions of Church that take various forms and come from a large theological spectrum. It is similar to what the seeker movement would have been thirty years ago. The difference is that there isn’t a pure methodological distinctive that ties them all together. The common desires I see from many of them is that there are some basic paradigm shifts that they are embracing.
1. From “come to my church” to “go into thier world”
2. From “how to’s” to “want to”: looking for authentic desire over programatic tatics.
3. From individualistic to communal
4. From segemented to holistic
5. From protecting ourselves from culture to Proclaiming the Gospel in culture
It is primarily a shift in values and the expression those values is quite varied.
I think these are healthy correctives for many churches, and obviously we can over correct, but all in all I think these are good shifts that are healthy and biblical.
Once again Rick, thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It has been very helpful.
Great words Rick. I’m glad Emergent Village emailed this out to their subscribers. You and Imago are doing great things in Portland and around the world.
fantastic post rick…great thoughts…so are you saying youre a baptist? i had no idea
…..m.
www.DeadlyViper.org
I believe that “The American” church is headed in new directions, however I think there is real danger in the Emergent/ing church and The whole concept needs to be avoided as Jude says “Hate even the clothes on their back”
We need to stay far away from the heretics that invade under the disguise of “Emergent Christianity” which is best to stance yourself from even the title, and to leave the conversation all together.
I never see anywhere in the bible where we are called to “Sit and Wait” whn it comes to defending scripture. Throughout history people have been martyred over this thing called doctrine.
I just see this entire conversation being dangerous and I applaud anyone and everyone who is willing to make a loud and bold stand against the very notion.
What heresy is being committed and by who? If you can’t answer that then you have nothing to condemn. I never said lets sit and wait to defend scripture. If there is heresy than confront the person who is committing it. But making very closed minded statements by pulling a verse out of context from Jude is the type of thing that really is creating the problem with the church in America. You could quote that verse about anyone who does not agree with you. It is going to take a little more maturity than that I am afraid, but no one is keeping anyone in the conversation, if that makes you feel better. I wonder what you are afraid of?
Did I misread the Article…You did mention that there is heresy in the Emergent.ing church right?
“I don’t want to appear naive about what is going on. Some of the theological conversations in the emerging circles are of concern. What is great about this however is that we have 2000 years of orthodoxy to help us determine what heresy is.”
If you want me to be specific I will (Although you should know seeing that you wrote about areas that cause concern)
Doug Pagitt is one who’s opinion on holiness is far off base, who believes that all Humans will be judged equally and that Hell is not as Jesus said it was. If you need sources here is the link he is on a radio interview.
The interview starts a little after 5 minutes and is approx 20 minutes long.
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1007/WOTMR-10-22-07-Hour1.mp3
I find the idea of the “Emergent/Emerging Church” intriguing, especially the buzz it creates because it is “new and exciting.” Pastor Rick, I can see your conviction and cautiousness labeling yourself or church Emergent/Emerging, I would be very wary of this as well. In my opinion, allow people to call new churches what they will, instead aim to be known for loving Jesus and loving the community.
That being said, I have had some concerns with the direction of the “Emerging Church” as well.
I am no expert, but I believe the emerging church must take a strong stance to define itself as being theologically conservative. The Emerging Church tends to be so culturally engaged, that culture could easily overrun the church if a strong stance is not taken. A point in case, my family and I sat next to a homosexual couple last week at church. I was uncomfortable, but glad to see them there, because I too needed God’s Grace as much as them. However, I was appalled as we watched them demonstrate intimacy while inline for communion. There was no conviction, no repentance, no getting right with Jesus before taking of the bread and wine (this honestly breaks my heart). After the service my wife and I had a sincere heart to heart and are considering leaving an Emerging Church and stepping into something more traditional. I’m very concerned that some Emerging Churches are more concerned about being culturally relevant than they are teaching repentance and fear of the Lord.
So to wrap up my point, if the Emergent Church does not strongly define itself, it could walk the path of the Church of Corinth. Maybe the church does not have to label itself, but it certainly must take a strong stance in order to not be swept away by culture.
I have been thinking about this whole Emergening/Emergent Church thing for a little while. I brought up the name of someone (considered to be in the Emergent Church) and their books and was quickly shut down for even bringing up the man’s name. The reason? His stance on something.
So like any “do-gooder” I acquiesced. To make it worse, I became a little bit cookie cutter. Days later someone was reading one of said books and I quickly swooped in to save the day. That’s when I felt that nudged in my gut that asked, “Have you checked any of this out for yourself or are you going off hear say?”
Guilty!!
I appreciate the desire to protect, as Marcus Pittman is doing but I also appreciate the desire of Rick to stand back and let things develop a little bit before just going in swinging our machetes to clear it all out.
I don’t want to EVER go against God. Even though I do. But I absolutely want to tear down everything I’ve made that gets in the way of this big universal tapestry that our Father keeps weaving together.
Wow, lots of metaphors and similes in there.
Great Post Rick. I’ll enjoy coming back to this site.
Love this conversation, especially the fact that people are thoughtfully responding. Sometimes trying to talk or, heaven forbid, learn about God or the Church on the internet is like trying to get my toddler to stop flirting with danger.
One thing I have noticed is often mentioned by those associated with the EC is their thoughts and responses to postmodernism. It seems to me the Church as a whole is forced to respond or fall out of relevancy entirele, but the EC has been the most willing to ready a response.
Maybe that’s just part of
“5. From protecting ourselves from culture to Proclaiming the Gospel in culture”,
but it does seem to figure prominently in the things I’ve read.
I would love a discussion of what directions you hope the chuch does NOT go down. One pitfall I’ve heard you mention is the coolness factor in services sneaking in to replace the stale programmatic and end up missing the authentic again.
Thanks, I just discovered the blog. Rad!
Words of grace… words of truth… well said my friend. Peace
Thanks Paul, hope your well brother, been too long.
Marcus, Thanks for your repsonse. I don’t know Pagitt that well. I have only met him once. My take is that it would be helpful to determine what orthodoxy is. What specifically am I required to beleive about theological issues. Where are the boundaries? Where have they been through out church history? Are we saying that someone is no longer Evangelical or no longer Orthodox in the broaders sense of the word? I think this would be helpful. I also think it would be helpful if people would declare what they beleive in a stronger way. I dont beleive that everything is black and white but I do think it would be helpful for people who are leaders and in places of influence to talk about what they beleive or what they are wrestling with. I think it would be great if some of you put some energy into studying church history and look at what historically has been the stance and response to heresy. What the boundaries were and how they were determined? What reccomendations would you have for dealing with those issues today? Has anyone really committed heresy? I am not trying to cop out of giving an answer but I do think it is work that everyone should do before pronouncing judgment.
One more thought…..
Another great question would be what is an evangelical? To be post-evangelical which I think is where many are going, is not necessarily to disagree with evangelical theology but more so a rejection of most evangelical practice, which tends to be overly political, us against them relationship with culture, and believes that information equals transformation in practice. I think the emerging church is coming about due to the bankruptcy of those things.
What does it look like to become a community of Jesus?
Rick,
Thank you for your post and your insite. In your conversation with Marcus you address many questions that I think are relevant and are important for the church as a whole (as does Marcus). We need to understand what we believe and why, but just as importantly we need to understand how we should live as a result of those beliefs, for me personally this is where the “emerging conversation” has most impacted my life.
Two years ago I was on the leadership team (lay leader)in a conservative (fundemental) non-denominational church in southern California. but two years ago I moved and found myself called to a liberal main line church in Downtown Denver. About that same time I was introduced to the emerging church movement and some of it’s authors. It has been a crazy couple years, at times I wish I could go back and live in a world where everyone believes exactly like I do, but most of the time I am grateful that God has called me to be apart of what he is doing in the city where I live.
My thoughts on orthodoxy - It seems that historically the church has decided what is orthodox as a result of first identifying heresy, we have basically defined ourselves and beliefs by what we are against (this is a over simplification I know). In alike manner we have defined personal holiness and Christlikness by what we don’t do. I have been toying with the idea of what the church would look like if we rather defined orthodoxy by what we are for (what Jesus was for), and holiness by what we do (what Jesus did). I think I would like to be part of a community that held/ lived those beliefs. I hope/ believe that is what the emerging church is all about, and the direction in which it is heading.
I am glad that I found this post via Cathy. It was a very interesting read and the comments are very thoughtful and spoken out well.
I am an individual that has been involved in the emergent conversation for awhile and I have participated in a few conferences and am part of a couple cohorts.
The labeling can be very difficult for some because they have been “boxed” in with a denominational name for a long time. For them to participate in a discussion/movement with people from all different denominations can be “freightening”. Especially, if they hold onto some doctrines as “must haves”.
Thus, when people look for doctrinal issues (stances) in the emergent; it is tough. There is a broad perspective.
Rick, I think that you summed it up well in your comment on it is more about communial and the world not the individual church.
Marcus:
On Doug, I do not know every position that he stands for. However, I have talked to him a few times and ate with him this last week. He is a man that strives hard to show/examine love, hope and faith. I will listen to the podcast and see if I can pinpoint his thought and give some insight.
Chris:
On communion. It may be tough. You can’t throw out emergent from one experience. HOWEVER, Jesus did share communion with individuals who were going to turn their back on Him and deny Him.
Jake, your last few sentences are where I have been hanging out for little while now. I’ve really been the “holiness by what we do (what Jesus did) thing. In Colossians 3 “Rules for Holy Living” passage has seemed to be taught and focussed on starting in verse 5 and going from there… Put to death therefore whatever belongs to the earthly nature. But I haven’t heard a lot of teaching, at least where I am, on verses 1 through 4 which says to me that as a Jesus Follower I should set my heart on Him and focus on what He focuses on.
I say all that to say thank you. I appreciated your words.
Hanging behind this whole conversation and coming out more clearly in the last couple of posts is the question of how a group identity is formed.
Before God called me to my current carreer (REALTOR) I was once trying to be Mr. Important by getting a Ph.D. in German history. I was studying at Cornell with Isabell Hull. (Its awesome when God humbles you and calls you to a career. I love this job better than trying to be Mr. Smarty Pants. But that is a different story.) The question that was forming in my mind was “How did political conservatism get so enmeshed with orthodoxy that they became synonomous?” We use political terms conservative and liberal to describe theological positions. Why? 19th century german theology and politics was the place to study and identity formation was the topic.
In my reading on the topic of identity formation, this is what I discovered. Historically, almost every group identity has been created in reaction against some other identity. Hegel’s idea of dialectic has some merit.(Except the part about reason always moving toward truth.) The single best way to unify any given set of people is to find a set of characteristics which no member carries and vilify them. You can see this in practice in the French revolution in which the weak democraticly elected government unifies a very diverse people by attacking the surrounding nations. (Napoleon didn’t start those wars he just continued them.) It was a very successful move. French nationalism remains one of the strongest national movements in the world to this day 200+ years later. You can see this in Nazi Germany. It is much easier to understand Germans as “not Jew” than it is to actually define what a German consists of. Especially when you consider that a truly unified German state didn’t exist until 1918. You can also see this in the rise of Serbian nationalism in the 1990s. Serbians peacfully lived with Bosnian muslims and Croations in the old Yugoslavia. When that went away Serbians used ethnic cleansing, historical disagreements and war in order to (re)create an ethnic/national identity. Ironically they also nearly created a new ethnic group in the process the “Kosovar.” Kosovo is largly inhabited by ethnic Albanians but the persecution of this group by the Serbians helped them begin to self identify in a stronger fashion and they began to no longer identify themselves as Albanians but rather a new ethnic group of Kosovars. Even our press for a time stopped using the term Kosovo Albanian to describe them and started to call them Kosovars. But this proto-ethnicity never suceeded largely because the diplomats from Europe and the US refused to acknowledge its validity as a category. They figured that South East Europe didn’t need another ethnic identity to mess up the situation further so they steadfastly called them Kosovo Albanians and eventually the idea of Kosovar disappeared.
OK so how does the history lesson relate to the conversation about emerging/emergant label? Well for one thing the Kosovar story seems to me to hold out a warning for those, like me, who self identify with the emerging church. We can sqaush what God might want to do with us by creating a strong group identity in reaction to criticism from those who do not see themselves as part of the EC. Just the criticism itself can make us overreact and create a firm and fixed identity in order to hold off our critics. That would be a sad thing and might do more damage to God’s movement than our critics ever could.
On a theological level I think that what we are seeing in modern group formation is nothing more or less than the fulfillment of the curse of babel. Anytime you talk about group identity the tendency will be to define the conversation in terms of what your group reacted against rather than what you group consists of. The question for those of us who seek to follow Christ is whether or not we are called by Christ to be a redemptive light against the curse or whether we are to give up and just enact the curse without trying to do better. In practice, I used to kind of take the give up approach, but being at Imago Dei has challenged me to try and act in a redemptive fashion when I run up against a biblical curse. Just because it says that I will rule over my wife in Genesis 3 doesn’t mean that I get to be a jerk at home or claim power in my marriage. That was a curse. It needs to be redeemed.
However, this doesn’t really get us around the whole problem does it? Christ, Peter and Paul all call us separately to make judgements about the boundaries of orthodoxy. Anytime a church discipline issue comes up we are in great danger. We have to make a judgement about someone else’s behavior and right there the group is asserting its will over an individual. We are saying that to remain part of this group you must change and conform.
So again, how does this relate to the current conversation. I think that because we live in a fallen world post babel we will always wrestle with that curse. As Rick might put it, we will live in tention. We will always find it easier to define our identity in opposition to an-other. That is why I really appreciate the last couple of comments on this thread because they try and do identity formation differently. Typically the debate looks something like this: I am EC because we don’t sing hymns or because we don’t judge people like xyz church. I am not EC because we don’t tolorate homosexuals like they do. That is just enacting the curse. Instead we need to focus on what the other side contributes to the conversation and how we are being formed into the image of God through Christ.
I also think that understanding how group idenity works can help us be careful about who we challenge and criticize. We always need to ask ourselves why we are rejecting a certain group or label. Is it because it is convenient for our own identity to reject them? Or have they as a group or as an individual truly left orthodoxy behind. From this standpoint I am not sure why the whole label EC should be abandoned because a few have used it poorly. Should the label southern baptist be abandoned by all because some people within the movement used it for racist purposes in the 1950s and 1960s? No one would ask that. So why is the label EC so toxic to some? Perhaps it is because it becomes another way to create a group. We are the evangelicals because we are not part of the heretical EC. That is nothing more than the curse of babel in its purest form and it causes us to miss out on what God is doing in others who are not like us.
Before you think that I have a superiority problem I must confess that I have had to move past judging all those “stale,” “self-indulgent,” boomer churches that my parents raised me in. God has taught me to love them and to give them grace. He as also shown me that he is at work in them redeeming boomers and suburbanites. He has also shown me how much real community there can be among boomers. It has been beautiful to see my parents and their leaders grow. What blessings I could miss if I judge them because it doen’t work for me or because they criticize me. All of us inside or outside the EC movement must redeem the curse of babel and not judge those who are not like us but remain within orthodoxy. No one is exempt from the challenge. I was wrong. I confess my sin.
Erik Wecks
One of Rick’s sheep
Rick, you have a lot of really good things to say here. However, just in a spirit of honesty and full-disclosure, I have to admit that some of it comes across with a bit of a paternalistic and condescending feel to it - especially when you refer to your own church as the mature emergents and the rest of us as children.
I’d also confess that whenever someone starts cautioning emergent folks like myself to not stray too far from “orthodoxy” the first thing I think is “I wonder whose version of orthodoxy they’re referring to?” (if you just mean the ancient ecumenical creeds I’m not too worried - but when you add in “the gospel of the reformers” then I’m not quite sure your box is big enough for all of us.)
And the next thing I think is “I wonder how long it will be before I say something - or just ask a question - that steps outside their personal definition of ‘orthodoxy’ and they’ll end up denouncing me, excluding me, firing me, etc.”
My blog pointed out the cannon and creeds so that is a fairly wide. I myself appreciate the foundation laid by the reformers and think we need to build on it. That does not mean that everyone else is outside of orthodoxy. What I was saying that you took as paternalistic was simply that there are those of us that got in on the conversation ten plus years ago, and there are younger people just getting in on it. Many of us are nearing 40 or older. I want to protect the space for the 20 somethings who are just getting in on it to have the freedom to mature without fearing that they must figure it all out right now. I want them to have room to explore and grow and discover while at the same time remain orthodox. They need to have the space to study theology and be exposed to others while they develop their theology. If I meant personal definition of orthodoxy then that really would be no position at all would it. The definition must be large enough to define “the” church and out of that other groups emerge that specify certain theological positions that define their community. Evangelical, catholic etc. I added the gospel of the reformers in defining myself.
Thanks for clarifying Rick. I think I understand you better now.
And I’ve been a part of the EC for about 10 years now too (though I’m only approaching my 30’s). But I have to say that personally I don’t feel like I’ve “matured” yet with my theology. I’m still “exploring”, “growing”, “discovering”, etc. and frankly, I hope to never stop. So of course I’m all for giving other 20-somethings the freedom to do this too.
I agree with you I hope we all continue to grow and never stop learning. However, as you stated you are part of the Emerging Church so you have “landed” so to speak and your growth over the last ten years has put you squarley in that camp however wide that camp may be. You are not in other words, southern baptist I take it for reasons only you know. That is all I was trying to say. Lets create space for people to learn and discover where they find their theological home and hopefully it will be within the scope of orthodoxy. I think that is a great thing to help people discover.
Pastor Rick:
As a non-“emerging” Christian who believes deeply in the dynamic expression of the faith in a life of true discipleship empowered by the Holy Spirit, I was intrigued by this post. Here is my contribution to the “conversation.”
While on its face your post reads as a reasonable plea for patience and understanding for the “emergent/emerging” church, it seems to me to really be a plea to be granted immunity from definition, criticism, protest, or correction. You don’t want the EC to be categorized because you don’t want to see it labeled. Frankly, your plea seems a bit naïve and disingenuous. Naïve because a major movement drawing tens of thousands of mostly young people, cannot and should not escape scrutiny. If these people are being seduced into error — and there is reason to be concerned that they are — then these concerns must be voiced. Disingenuous because at the same time you are asking for a “time out” from definition and criticism, the EC continues to grow and devalue the historic evangelical church community.
There are at least two key aspects of the movement that I have noticed.
First, the “emergent/emerging” church seems not merely about promoting a different way of “doing church,” it also seems to be about promoting the philosophical superiority of post-modernism over modernity. It does not seem only about designing a different way to reach the post-modern generation with the Gospel of Jesus Christ — which would be a legitimate, historic expression of New Testament faith — it also seems interested in defending the post-modern view of understanding the world. In this, it seems it is partnering not with Christ, but with humanistic philosophers who have an interest in seeing their philosophical conceits accepted as secular dogma. It seems to me that in so doing, the EC will both continue to confuse and be confused. It will easily fall prey to post-modern intellectuals who will undoubtedly constantly redefine what it means to be “post modern.” The goal posts will surely be incrementally moved until the EC will one day look back and realize that in its desire to be considered “relevant” and “cool,” it has become disconnected from any semblance of Biblical Christianity.
Second, in a real way, the EC often seems less about faith and doctrine than it is about style and fashion. Like every youth-oriented movement in recent past, it seems to be sure that it is superior simply because it is new and rejects the “stuffiness” of its parents. In one recent post to emergentvillage.com, a writer celebrated the tie between the “emerging church” culture and the use of Macintosh computers! With some in the EC movement, it seems that there is often less about living powerfully and dynamically for Christ than there is a conceit that the “emerging church” is cool and cutting edge. It seems to be Christianity suited to the café and coffee-house. It often seems to be about designing a Christianity for NW 23rd Avenue and the Hawthorne District. Not about designing new ways of taking the authentic Gospel to the people of NW 23rd Avenue and the Hawthorne District, mind you, but about designing a Christianity which will be acceptable to the people of NW 23rd Avenue and the Hawthorne District. Needless to say, this kind of “christianity” is nearly as old as the Gospel itself (Phil. 3:17-20).
Finally, you yourself already seemed trapped in the “emerging” box. You are defined and trapped simply by your self-identification with it. Even your comment about the value of some of the reformers has brought charges of departure from EC orthodoxy against you in responses to this post. You will be trapped by your own EC self-identification until you decide to break away from it.
There is no question that many so-called “evangelical” churches are stuffy, dead, and shallow. So be it. Jesus Himself had plenty of criticism for 5 of the 7 churches of Revelation (Rev. 2-3). Yet, the true church, and the Truth, remains. The EC throws out the baby with the bathwater. Keith Green started a community in the 1980s that did nearly everything that the EC professes to want to do without compromising the historic standards of the faith on issues of heaven, hell, sin, repentance and Scripture. Jesus People USA accomplished the same in the 1970s. Perhaps what the evangelical church needed was a re-injection of authentic faith, but, it appears that for many, the EC represents not re-injection, but simply rejection.
The world will not object to an EC flavored “christianity” that seeks to adapt itself to worldly tastes and to please the world. It will not object to a “christianity” which serves it without “words.” It will, however, react and react violently to an authentic Christianity which confronts it with the words Jesus used, “Repent and believe the Gospel” and which John Baptist used, “Flee from the wrath to come.” Christians are not to become acceptable to the world, but to stand in front of the world as it is on the highway to hell and lovingly, but firmly, say, “Stop, consider, turn, and believe.” (To say this, one must be sure and the only thing the EC seems to be sure of is that it isn’t sure.) Anything else may be religion, but it isn’t the Christianity of the Lord Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, the Early Church, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Waldenses, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Hus, the Reformers, Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, Torrey, Bounds, Lewis, Tozer, Ravenhill, Green, et al.
It is something that many in the EC movement might carefully consider.
Mike’s point is well taken. One of the key disciplines in the Christian life is to examine oneself. That goes hand in hand with communion–the most common and often practiced public observance in Christendom.
Self-evaluation was important to Paul. (I Cor. 9:25-10:13) And though we are warned about personally judging others, there is no such reticence in scripture about judging doctrine.
Paul points out the importance of leaders paying careful attention to their life and doctrine and ministering in a way that others will recognize as good. (I Tim. 2:15-16) There needs to be a clarity in our churches in practice and doctrine that is visible and capable of being evaluated by others.
Mike is right to point out, the Lord’s scathing judgment on most of the 7 churches in Revelation. Do we too easily give our ourselves and our churches (emergent or not) a pass on conduct and doctrine?
It should be a goal to be identified by what we do and believe rather than what we don’t do and don’t believe, but scripture has lots of lists on what not to do. And lots of teaching about how not to be like the guys who fell or are falling.
In the development of doctrine (orthodoxy) detailing why gnosticism, arianism, or nestorianism went astray was much easier than defining some of the deeper truths about the Father, the Son, the Spirit and salvation. Our positive statements end up being mostly mystery. They become much clearer in the context of pointing out the error of heresies they were formulated to condemn.
Showing our love is similarly often more clear to others (and maybe ourselves) by the things we shouldn’t do (lie, steal, hate, be arrogant) than the things we should do (be patient, kind, merciful, forgiving). It’s just easier to identify theft over patience or arrogance over forgiveness.
Thanks, Rick, for making this discussion possible.
nice one Rick!
Know what scares me the most? People who love Jesus, running around and telling each other that they are wrong and that they don’t love Jesus the right way.
Division scares me the most out of everything.
We’re all sinful, folks…emergent church, old church, Baptist church, Reformed church, we’re just creating new ways to label sin. Great, let us not forget to be wary of sin, but let’s love first, like Jesus did. It’s hard to lay down our pride and our right to be right, but let’s pray for the courage to do it.
Hang in there brothers & sisters on both sides.
The “EC” may be on to something innovative, may be a fad or may be a youthful rehashing of the same old same-old but only time will tell.
The “Jesus Movement” of the 60’s and 70’s was a conversation on what it meant to be a different kind of Christ-follower too. Like the “JM” the “EC” may move into the mainstream (Calvary Chapel, the Vinyard Movement and Sparrow Records ) and have will have its controversial movements and figures too (Shiloh Youth Revival Centers, Lonnie Frisbee, The JPUSA, The Family & Mike Warnke come to mind). I’m guessing that, like the “EC”, it was pretty near impossible to get a consensus of opinion about what the “JM” was either.
“It’s like, church and Jesus and love, ya know? Only it’s different.”
I personally hope the “EC” is more like the reformation than like the “JM” but as I said, only time will tell. Neither the reformation nor the “JM” happened overnight. Neither was met with open arms. Both kept their eyes on God’s word and both changed what it meant to be a Christ-Follower.
Respect and love in Christ,
-Dale
http://insectsnangels.blogspot.com/
[…] March 22, 2008 by PeregrinJoe I found some excellent thoughts from Pastor Rick McKinley of Imago Dei Community about the Emerging (ent) church that I wanted to share with you. You can find his writing on it here. […]
[…] music. The Christian and the Atheist…can they really talk? John Piper on the emerging church. Imago Dei pastor on the emerging church. Christian students get immersed in lives of the poor. Is sin dead? Unchurched Survey…What can […]