Contrarian Theories of the Emerging Church
Commenting on the Emerging Church has become a cottage industry. The phrase itself produces around 850,000 hits in a Google search, in addition to which you can be blessed by 2800 graphics, but, surprisingly, no videos (at least per Google).
After several years of near-silence, the evangelical publishing industry finally weighed in with books that explained the EC, books that criticized it, and books that help its practitioners. Some of these resources have been really helpful while others represent predictable questions like, “how many candles does it take in an emergent service to foment heresy?”
Questions like this suggest the presence of some contrarian theories, naughty, impolite interpretations of the emergent phenomenon. These theories may not be said out loud very often, but I have heard them, or something like them, in my travels. Maybe you have too:
1. Generational Dismissal: What we’ve got here is youth ministry for young adults led by Generation X. The deconstructive and counter-cultural tendencies of the EC are not theological so much as they are driven by fairly well-known traits of thirty-somethings: cynicism, blaming Boomers for everything, and a slacker mentality toward ministry that sacrifices productivity for yet another trip to Starbucks.
2. All Teched Up: The EC is mostly a creation of the internet. Easy electronic connectivity allows young leaders to find each other, build a critical mass of ideas, and basically portray the movement as much larger and more influential than it is on the ground. Subtract the internet, and related technologies, and the whole thing grinds to a halt. The EC does not have the ideas to thrive without IT support.
3. The Priesthood of Artistic Believers: Emergers are simply exercising leadership based on talent, rather than position. As what amounts to a movement of intellectuals and artists, the EC is creating an “aesthetic priesthood.” If you aren’t an artist or a writer your role may be something like scraping the candle wax off the floor after the worship service, er, dialog gathering, er, spiritual formation journey, or whatever you call it.
4. Just Another Sector: The EC is not a reformation of the whole church (the “R” word has largely disappeared form the conversation), but the ultimate exercise in targeted ministry, aiming at mid-town, artsy, young, Anglo, brick loft-dwellers. Call them “cultural creatives” if you want, but it comes down to the same thing. On this issue, the EC makes suburban seeker church look diverse.
5. Lawyering Up: Someone said this one to my face the other day. The EC is really no different from conventional church, but, if it were different, it’s bad, really, really bad. I thought this claim sounded like a defense attorney working a jury, or like the latest OJ Simpson book that was never published: “I didn’t kill her, but if I had…”
For Discussion:
1. Have you heard any of these contrarian theories? Are there others you could add to the list?
2. Is there any truth to any of these contrarian theories, or is the EC just getting payback for its criticism of conventional church?
This blog originally appeared in Monday Morning Insights
Welcome to the Reader Forum
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Off-Road Disciplines
In Off-Road Disciplines, Earl Creps reveals that the on-road practices of prayer and Bible reading should be bolstered by the other kinds of encounters with God that occur unexpectedly—complete with the bumps and bruises that happen when you go “off-road.”
See Earl on Google Video:
Earl Creps—a popular speaker and leader—is director of the Doctor of Ministry program and associate professor at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (AGTS) in Springfield, Missouri. He has been a pastor, ministries consultant, and university professor. Along the way, Creps earned a Ph.D. in communication at Northwestern University and a doctor of ministry degree in leadership at AGTS.
What is Earl doing? View or subscribe to Earl Creps' Google calendar. Or learn how to contact him directly.
Add Earl's Journal to
Join The Leading Edge email list:
A free monthly e-newsletter from the Doctor of Ministry Director, Earl Creps. Offers articles, training opportunities, tools, as well as recommended books, websites and other resources. To receive The Leading Edge enter your email address in the form below or request your subscription by emailing dmin@agts.edu. You can download past issues of The Leading Edge as small PDF files from Resources.
I find all this stuff frustrating. I think that the EV and the EC need to accept constructive, respectful criticism…it promotes growth afterall. But most of these sorts of comments are just fearful reactions of something that is generally misunderstood or not understood at all.
Most comments we get are so erroneous they’re hardly worth responding to since not only do they not represent us, they don’t represent any EC/EV people we know.
...and we don’t even call ourselves emergent, I can’t imagine how bad it is for people who do.
for the record, I DO think that some of those things are going on – appealing to artists, youngers opposing the olders, etc. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to level those accusations at an entire movement.
Finally, I think there is a Reformation going on, but I don’t think it’s limited to the EC/EV
That pretty much sums it up, except for the lot who think that emergent is down right heretical. I’ve heard the comment, “I just do what the Bible says.” and “We shouldn’t have opinions, because the only opinion that matters is God’s.” I was basically being accused of having an opinion contrary to God’s, which happened to be on the topic of reaching the sought and church structure.
So I guess another category could be, Heretical rebellion of the true church.
Sounds a bit like Luther vs the church in his day.
The most frustrating thing is that while many emergent people (not all, and that should be addressed) want a conversation about the issues (isn’t that what emergent is?), those of a more modern mindset don’t want to discuss, but rather dismiss, or destroy. Hardly an atmosphere for dialogue.
Of course there are exceptions.
another confusing aspect of this debate is the difference between the emerging church movement in general and the emergent village. emergent village is a specific group within the emerging church dialogue. they also happen to be the most organized and vocal about their opinions.
what i’m saying is most poeple who talk about the emerging church do not make a distinction or even know there is one to be made. many strong comments about the emrging church are misdirected. the people that are unhappy may be referring to the emergent movement without knowing it and unfairly judging all emrging churches and leaders.
Erik – that’s very true. I think EV is doing awesome things and that Tony Jones has many good things to say. However, I also think that they tend to be a bit more provocative than most within the EC…something I personally have no problem with and I am convinced God is using EV for his glory in His Church. But it is errant and unfair to connect everyone in the EC with the few louder voices in the EV and I as frustrating as it is, there needs to be much much more education going on for this gross generalization to stop.
While we could go off on how misunderstood the EC conversation is, I’m not sure that is the most benificial way to handle the criticisms. This is the de facto method of dealing with criticism within the conversation. Of course the movement as a whole would deplore the idea that they had a method for dealing with criticism but there does seem to be a repeated pattern of behavior. I have even used it myself, but on to discussing the questions.
Yes, folks are starting to figure out what the movement is, despite a fixation by the movement to not be defined. So the criticisms are starting to gain ground and be repeated. I think the current trend I have heard is that there is a big difference between ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’. I’m not sure if this is a good distinction to make, it feels a little schmaltzy to me. But the idea is that there are those we can accept in the EC movement and those who we feel have left the essentials of the faith. So defining a distinction may make it easier to discuss what the emergent church is for traditional church leaders who are trying to figure out what to do with this next phase of what is in and what is out with church trends. I think the thinking goes like this:
If the EC is about just style, okay that is a cultural adaptation and is good.
If the EC is about new methods, okay that might show pragmatic benifits to the institutional church and is good.
If the EC is about new theology, we need to judge the new theology against what the Bible has to say and at least some of that is bad.
By the way, I think you meant to say that the ‘post’ originally appeared at Monday Morning Insights.
there are too many quick studies in the evangelical world. they read a couple of things on the web or hear a speaker and are instantly experts on the EC.
at the same time you have those in the evangelical world who want to jump in on anything that seems to be the wave to ride. these people don’t really care as long as it makes them look like they are on the cutting edge. it isn’t important what you are attaching to as long as you look good in attaching to them.
the EC is a complex loosely tied group of churches that requires much more than a quick read one day on the net. the evangelical world has become interested because numbers are making them interested. as the EC grows it is felt in the evangelical church world and that fact causes part of the problem. they feel threatened by a group of people that are difficult to define and even harder to copy. the result is to write about it and toss around a lot of terms to make you sound like you know what you are talking about when in fact you have no clue what you are really saying. the jealouy is in place and the controversy grows fueled by incomplete information and prejudice. not much godliness but a lot of human reasoning.
I have been in the ministry 20 years, and planted the church I pastor 11 years ago. I love some of the EC views and approaches to ministry and culture. I am striving to become and EC as I understand that to be. I have a strong desire to reach the postmodern culture.
I have been in ministry for over thirty years. Many things bother me about the whole post-modern mindset, but even more I am bothered by some of the perceptions of others about post-moderns. (I know this is about EC but I am getting there).
I heard an “expert” say that you can’t “lecture” or preach to post-moderns for more than twenty to thirty minutes before they tune you out. Many times when I am teaching high school and college age students and try to stop after about an hour they beg me to keep on. There is a hunger for TRUTH that can be lived out in the “real” world. Biblical truth is just that.
My only problem with the Emerging Church and Emerging Village – which I never heard of until I read this post – has to do with my own mental connect to evolutionary language. Life is said to emerge from non-life and consciousness from non-consciousness. The concept of emergence replaced that of supervenience in biology for obvious reasons. I believe the Holy Spirit “supervenes” upon the Church to produce change. Whatever emerges may or may not be traceable to the Holy Spirit.
I suppose my theological question is this: Is the church a “bottom-up” or a “top-down” organism?
Some time Gregory TeSelle blogged on his experience attempting to deconstruct the modern church for an audience of A/G pastors. I thought his questions were insightful and interesting, but I also found them to be unbalanced. So, I examined his questions from my modernist point of view. You might find the article of interest:
“It’s okay … I’m Emergent. I’m here to help.” Or, deconstructing the helpful deconstruction.
Comments are still open, and still welcome!
http://tatumweb.com/blog/2005/09/27/emergent-here-to-help/
Rich.
BlogRodent
I am apprehensive for many reasons concerning the EM conversation…The thing that is most disturbing to me is it seems a common thread among EM thinkers/theologians (dont have a better term) is the seeming lack of belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. There are few that will actually come out and write/say it, but it is in the undertone of much that is written and said…I am young, well not necessarily young in the EM perspective, but I hold fast to Scriptures as God’s revelation to man of himself. I believe in understanding context and the culture/times of the original writing, but I also believe that it is pertinent and RELEVANT for today….exactly the way it is written…I am not sure what this makes me in this day and age, but I have this conviction nonetheless….This is probably the single most polarizing issue with me and the EM conversation/movement. Earl, please comment on this if you would….My research is in the infancy stages but this has really alarmed me…God bless!!!!
Rev had an interesting article a couple of months or so ago about the Emerging Church. They said that there are two strands. One which says we need to rethink theology, the Bible etc… The substance of what it means to be Christian. The other says we need to rethink format or how we do church. I would say that McClaren, Paggit and Jones fall into the former category but Kimball, Taylor and Earl would fall into the latter. I’m still undecided about Rob Bell. Sometimes I hear him and think he’s the second and other times it sounds like he’s the first view. I’m uncomfortable with church the way it’s done today, but not so much with the biblical foundation or my fellowship’s doctrine. So though I may not enjoy or connect with a traditional service, I can still appreciate the Scriptural roots.
I was talking to a friend recently who enjoys and uses Rob Bell’s stuff to “pattern” his own ministry as well as uses it directly (NOOMA). In our conversation, as well as several others, a common thread he says is the driving force behind the Emerging (insert here)movement, conversation, village, ummm….anyways, the common thread that draws people is the overwhelming majority of people he has encountered who have been “burnt” by the “traditional church”. Burnt means alot of different things to alot of people, but it made sense after reading one of Mclaren’s books. The philosophy of “protest” is very much apart of the Emerging mind-set (so it seems). And if you have been hurt, it would stand to reason that this type of mind-set would be appealing when directed at the thing, or entity that hurt you. This really scares me because of the seductive nature of rebellion and going against the grain for the sake of thumbing your nose. Mclaren is much too intellectual for simply thumbing his nose, but I get that sense from him and others. This is troubling to me. For all of the posturing and endless material out there from emerging thinkers concerning their propensity to live like Christ or to emulate the life of Christ, I have a difficult time reconciling the “protest” thing. I just do not read in my Bible that Jesus was protesting anything….at least when looked at through the “full-counsel” of Scripture. I agree with the sentiment that many share that the way we “do” church does need to change…and I actually like the emphasis made by emerging thinkers concerning “orthopraxy”....but when something of true value like the Body of Christ is broken, you fix it, you certainly do not call it worthless and discard it….The question is: Do you really want to see the “church” fixed and at what level do you see yourself as apart of the solution? I am sorry for the optimistic point of view, but I see this as a wonderful opportunity to do something for the eternal Kingdom of God….Don’t even get me started on the “escapist” label that I keep reading about concerning futurist eschatalogical views….
Apprehensive #12
Your comments are the first things that have made any sense to me whatsoever concerning this whole subject area. Thanks.
The greatest weakness of emergent is its lack of self-critique——the very thing it spills so much ink over in relation to the failures of others.
Absolute depravity