Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 6

Does Theology Inform Emerging Church Ecclesiology? (Part one of two)

I think one of the main frustrations of EC opponents is their inability to define what it is the EC believe. Traditionally opposition comes in the form doctrinal differences. However, the EC is defiantly non-foundationalist and what they believe is either undefined or multi-traditional. Therefore, opponents are unable to battle on the traditional fields of theological war.

It is difficult for the emerging church to develop an agreed upon set of doctrines given the diverse and fluid nature of the movement. EC theology is emerging within the discussion itself. The result is not a systematic theology but a practical theology. According to Colson, the goal of emerging church leaders is too translate the gospel for a post-modern generation (2006). Theological reflection is undertaken so that the gospel can be incarnated and proclaimed.

Emerging church theology is being developed along the journey. In their own opinion, they are trying to articulate theologically what they are experiencing. Anderson in his book An Emergent Theology for an Emerging Church argues that the EC is a work of the Spirit in contemporary culture in the same way the Reformation was a work of the Spirit. Their theology is developed on the journey and is therefore contextual. Furthermore, argues Anderson, the experience of these developing faith communities is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit (2006, p.7). The theological reality of the emerging church is the same as any other church; Christ is their foundation their reality is in Christ’s relationship to the church and not in a doctrinal statements or tradition.

However, it is important to note that the EC should not be above critique or even criticism where appropriate. There is a need for them to reflect theologically and discuss the implications of their experience. Experience must always be tested and considered in the light of Scripture. Moltmann would argue, ‘just because the church is given a Christological foundation, its vitality must be developed eschatologically and in catholicity’ (1977, p.134). The point he is making is that no church is an island! (I think that quote came from Bon Jovi )

One may well be concerned at what might be considered a pragmatic and experience based theology that appears to be developing out of the wider EC context. It is important for the EC leaders to listen to the voices of other traditions, even those who disagree with them. Personally, I am concerned culture and not Scripture are driving the EC ecclesiology and theology. However, that does not mean one can argue the EC is a lesser form of church that the say the Catholic church. To do so would be a limiting of God, Christ and the work of the Spirit.

Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 5

One of the biggest mistakes critics of the EC make is trying to define too narrowly what it is and how they go about constructing or reconstructing their faith community experience. In reality it is difficult to give an exact description because of the many and varied expressions of emerging church. However, there are points of continuity among their practices: these include incarnational mission, decentralised worship and authentic community.

Incarnational Mission

According to Frost and Hirsch, incarnational mission is identification with those who you are trying to reach. It is about living and experiencing the cultural rhythms of people, which leads to an understanding of the contemporary culture (2003). Incarnational living seeks to understand the contemporary culture from within rather than standing from the outside and looking in (McLaren, p.165). This, according to emerging church leaders, is different to the traditional approach to mission that seeks attract rather than reach. It invites the seeker to come to them, rather than the church going to them. As Burke explains, for many Christians, mission has become burdensome and needs to be more organic and natural: that is what incarnational mission seeks to do (20001, p.109). My critique however, would be that there is a danger that this approach can become little more than another pragmatic method of evangelism.

Decentralised Worship

There is a hunger in the emerging church to experience God through experiential or multisensory worship (Rabey, 2001, p.91 & Kimball, 2003, p.111). This area could quite easily be of most concern to people standing ‘outside’ the EC; a fear I feel is unwarranted. Worship in the emerging church seeks to be a gathering of fellow travellers, as opposed to Christians who attend a worship service: it is, as Kimball explains, “very Christ centred, very community orientated, very vintage” (2003, p.113). This may or may not be the case. As I understand it, it is easy to say this and yet in reality it may just simply be good spin! However, the experience of worship is decentralised so that all who gather may experience and discover God. No longer is a person or group the focus of worship. Worship becomes a multi-sensory experience for those who wish to participate. Candles, Labyrinths, Art and monastic chant are all used in the worship experience. Kimball is quick to explain that it is more than just a meeting or another consumer based Christian product. Decentralised worship is about people experiencing and worshiping God in varied and different ways. It helps post moderns worship in a culturally relevant way (2003).

Authentic Community

Many of the core values described by emerging churches include statements about journeying together, or connecting with one another. Community is a core vale of the post-modern generation, as Rabey notes ‘if the post modern era has a catch phrase it may be “I belong therefore I am’’ (2001, p.71). Leadership within the emerging community is far less authoritarian and hierarchical than that of traditional evangelical churches. For example, the preacher is now a teacher, and the leader is now a facilitator. This is more than just a change of titles for the emerging church. It is a different way of life and church that appeals to contemporary culture. Burke explains the leadership within the emerging expression as that of a fellow traveller compared to a tour guide: the leaders are as much a part of the journey as the rest of the community (2003, p.35-45). There is an acknowledgement that no one knows everything and everyone can learn from one another. Leadership in the emerging church is part of the communal spirit that pervades the movement.

Personally, I feel these elements of the EC described are actually what all churches should aspire to. Not in practice but in reflection on the practices within each particular context. I also believe it is arrogant of the EC to claim that these things only occur within their movement. It seems to me that the greatest area of danger for the EC lies in its practices. Not because they are different rather, because they could simply become pragmatic means by which they enlist Post-Moderns in the “work” of the church. It is my opinion, and as Anderson argues also, that what we need is not so much an emerging church model, rather an emergent theology…

Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 4

Emerging Church Ecclesiology? (This section has been broken into two parts)

Well known Australian EC gurus, Frost and Hirsch, provide their vision for new emerging communities of faith when they state “we hope to base discipleship and life in our post modern world around a vital Christology and to reframe our ecclesiology entirely on missional grounds” (2003, p.XI).  In their opinion, post-moderns desire community, spirituality, empowerment and liberation, and, the missional community represents an encounter between God and human culture.  The emerging church is seeking to explore Christianity within a post-modern matrix (McLaren, 2000).

The incarnation provides a theological prism through which the emerging church can view mission (Frost and Hirsch, 2003, p.35).  It must be noted that not all writers view the emerging church solely as a missional community.  There is a danger that such an approach to church could become another pragmatic ‘evangelism’ strategy and deny the essentials of what it means to be the community of God’s people. Although Kimball acknowledges that their efforts are in part to reach non-Christian people: there are also many dissatisfied Christians looking for new and vibrant expression of the Christian life (2003)[1].  In his book, ‘They love Jesus but not the Church’ Kimball recounts a conversation with a young mum:

“She says that she has become disillusioned with the evangelical church. She mentioned how “church” has become so shallow in terms of the teaching. Instead of teaching focused on the historical Jesus, the preaching is more about the how-to’s of basic life skills that may or may not even mention Jesus. She knows that how-to teaching was helpful, but she feels she needs to move on from there. In a way she feels she has “outgrown” this type of church. She feels there must be more. She wants to know Jesus more, and for her it means leaving the church to find Him…. I have a pretty strong hunch that more and more younger people who grew up in the contemporary church are experiencing the same thing. Leaving church to find Jesus – perhaps a new strategy in the emerging church.” [2]

Many emerging churches seek to restructure the practices of the traditional churches. According to a leading EC website they would describe it as an attempt “to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a post modern culture” (emergingchurch.info, 2006). I would add that when they use the phrase, “deconstruct and reconstruct” they are not seeking to rewrite the bible, rather attempting to question what their churches have taught them One may well argue that they are seeking to do theology on the run! The churches re-evaluate and reinterpret their experience through a contemporary or post-modern framework. It is a return to what Kimball describes as s a vintage faith: that is a faith that is less constructed and more organic in nature (2003, p.28).

---

[1] All one needs to do is scan the internet blogs and posts of Christians who are fed up or disillusioned with the church.  They are looking for authentic expressions of their faith in a communal setting. Instances can be found at www.livingroom.org.au www.theooze.com & www.dtour.com .

[2] http://www.vintagefaith.com/artilces/leavingthechurch.html accessed on 20th June 2006

Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 3

What is the emerging church?

This must be the hardest question to answer concerning the phenomenon many label “Emerging church”. Perhaps the easiest way to define it is to not try and label it to rigidly. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify common trends and themes emerging (excuse the pun) out of the post-modern communities. For instance perhaps we could say that the EC consists of a generation (not necessarily age specific) who are seeking an authentic faith community within which they can experience incarnational living, decentralised worship, and authentic community. There is a desire to have a more organic church as opposed to the structured churches they may have come from (Rabey, 2001).

The emerging church is not emerging in isolation: it is emerging within the post-modern context. Although he agrees with the emerging churches understanding of post modernism, Carson does not agree with their approach to the culture. He believes that the emerging church is capitulating to post-modernism’s rejection of absolute truth. He believes that they are being more faithful to culture rather than the bible (2005, p.75-86). McLaren acknowledges that the term ‘post-modern’ is rather absurd and odd, however, he realises it is a descriptor of the culture the church exists in. Post modernism places importance on subjective experience and truth and desires strong community relationships (2000, p.264). This is reflected in the emerging churches approach to Christian life. Post modernism is the context within which the emerging church seeks to live.

Although the emerging church around the world is messy and chaotic, according to Frost and Hirsch, it is dynamic and can be likened to a modern day Diaspora rather than an institution (2003, p.12-13) (A point on which I would disagree). In their opinion, it is not an institution that can be associated with doctrines and buildings. Where traditional forms of church are attractional (sic), dualistic and hierarchical: the emerging church is incarnational, messianic and apostolic in its approach to both Christian Living and Community (Frost & Hirsch, 2003).

Although as a movement the emerging church may seem chaotic, this does not mean it is not a response to the Spirit’s work in contemporary culture. I would argue, even with its faults, the emerging church is a fledgling movement and discussion among churches that are seeking to interpret and proclaim the gospel within a post-modern context. To tie a definition of the EC to a particular style of worship or missional style is incorrect and inadequate. Any definition must be grounded in the community’s reality as the people of God (and therefore its relationship to God). Therefore, any church seeking authentic expression within the post-modern generation could well be labelled emerging!

Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 2

Finding a Voice

Much criticism has been levelled at the emerging church over the years (some of it warranted). Some describe it as a protest; the natural result of post modernism, others however, such as Ray Anderson, have sought to respond to the challenges presented by the existence of the EC by offering serious theological reflection on the nature of experience and ecclesiology (2006).

It is true that many attempts made by the church to become relevant to the culture in which they exist. According to Anderson the churches attempt to become culturally relevant to post World War Two generations such as Baby Boomers and Gen Xers have been both fickle and futile with most returning to where they began (2006:3). However, after some initial scepticism Anderson admits to having his theological appetite whetted when he began to read the writings of emerging church leaders such as Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball. Their books have ignited in Anderson a desire to interact theologically with the emerging church conversation.

It would be very easy for Anderson to write a book about the emerging church movement. However, Anderson’s premise is what he “perceives to be a need for a creative and constructive theological paradigm for the emerging church movement” (2006:7). I think in part the book is written as a rebuff to Carson’s own book debunking the EC movment. Carson has difficulties with the nature and form of the movement and claims the boundaries of the emerging church are ill-defined and a protest against conservative evangelical tradition (2005). In focusing on an emergent theology Anderson resists the temptation to outline the contours of this new movement but instead he, “tease[s] out an emergent theology that is…discovered along the journey (revelational), contextual only because it is currently being lived out (incarnational), and contemporary only because it visibly takes us into the future (eschatological)” (2006:7). In approaching the topic from this premise Anderson does not commentate on the emerging church or provide another book of methods and programmes. Rather he provides a theological and ecclesiological foundation for the emerging church.

The purpose of this series is to evaluate and critique emerging church ecclesiology and theology, and discuss whether the emerging church is simply a pragmatic method for reaching the lost or a valid expression of the church in contemporary culture. In the next post we will try to define what the EC actually is!

Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? Part 1

A clear definition of the emerging church is difficult given its diverse and often fluid nature. Carson refers to the emerging church as a movement, giving it the same distinction as some church traditions (2005, p.12) however, McLaren disagrees preferring to call it a conversation not a movement (as cited by Crouch, 2004). What hinders any real description of the EC is it does not have a set of agreed upon doctrines. The term, ‘emerging’, gives an indication of movement and the Oxford dictionary describes ‘emerge’ (from where we get Emerging or Emergent) as ‘to come into view or become apparent’ (2006). Therefore, term describes the reality that this form of church is emerging within a particular sub-culture and the emerging church is both a movement and a conversation. Those involved are dialoguing and asking questions about what it means to be Christian and what the church in contemporary culture should look like.

In the mid to late nineties an unsettling trend began to emerge among evangelical churches in the United States and the United Kingdom. Pastors and leaders began to notice a shift in the ideals and mindsets of people (Kimball, 2003 & Rabey, 2001). For many, the church had become a ‘vendor of religious goods and services in a competitive religious market place’ (Hunsberger, as cited by Rabey, 2001, p.168). A revolt had begun against consumerism and marketing in the church. People were looking for a more organic and authentic expression of their faith, and for them, the church was not meeting that need. (The irony of this fact is that many forms of EC in my opinion have fallen into this same trap becoming post-modern versions of Willow Creek’s Seeker Services).

Carson agrees and argues that the emerging church is a protest against traditional, often fundamentalist, expressions of Evangelicalism, and mega seeker sensitive style churches (2005, p.36). However, Kimball disagrees, describing the emerging church as post seeker sensitive. He beleives that the emerging church has emerged out of that context (in a healthy way) and in his book ‘The Emerging Church’ he goes to great lengths to praise the contribution that the seeker friendly movement has had on the emerging church, explaining that it has taught the church the need to be conscious of the un-churched and contemporary culture (2003, p.31-38). Therefore according to those within the EC, the emerging church is not necessarily a rejection of mega churches, but rather a result of dissatisfaction with their style and method. The emerging church is a response to the critique that traditional churches, whether small or large, are not meeting the needs of a post-modern generation…

More Anon.

Emerging Church/Emergent Theology: To what End?

I read with interest last week Jim West’s critique of a congregation in the USA who have begun what they would like to call “Rock’n'Roll” church. He states, “It’s just another example of the admixture of authentic Christianity with the bile of modern society. Emergents in their theological bankruptcy might find it a meaningful expression of ‘church’, but to those of us who have experienced real Church, it’s a cause for violent upchucking”

Jim’s response to this ‘kind’ of church is common. Jim was not wrong in his critique of the church in question (I found myself shaking my head and saying yet again, “Only in America!”) He was wrong to label this church as “Emergent” and was incorrect in his definition of what he calls “Emergents” as theologically bankrupt (more on this point anon). It would seem that anything in the American church that appears to be new, different in form, and slightly anti-institutional, is labelled “Emergent”. Furthermore, if you throw in a few candles and a liturgy, you are all set to be an “Emerging Church”. However, as a commentator on Jim’s post pointed out regarding the church mentioned, “…things look rather un-emergent to me and altogether like another evangelical gimmik”. Much of what passes for emerging is in fact just another pragmatic attempt to draw people to church and not to Jesus Christ!

Before I began ministry here at Happy Valley I was preparing a dissertation on the Emerging Church/Emergent expressions of church. It is something that has gladly fallen by the wayside (enabling me to focus on my passion for Scripture and the study thereof). However, I thought I would offer some thoughts and reflections over the coming weeks on Emerging Church: Valid Expression or Post Modern Pragmatism? My own research convinced me (theologically) that most forms of church are valid expressions; whether they are institutional (such as the one I serve in) or, take the shape of an emerging church. It is the presence of God to the people and their response to him that defines the contours of church! In fact, as I will share in the near future, it was my interest in the emerging church that led to my returning to a denomination and parish ministry because of this very point! More anon.