Explainer: The Emerging Church
Some common characteristics of this "conversation."
But first I have to muddy the waters. Emerging church proponents resist labels. They think of themselves as participating in a "conversation," not a "movement." They prefer stories to propositional truths, mystery to certainty, and dialogue to doctrine. The emerging church is not a denomination. It has no official leaders and no serious level of organization. The only exception is the Emergent Village (from which we get the term emergent), an organization that describes itself as "a growing, generative friendship." Generally speaking, the emerging church is a loosely knit community of mostly young adults, disillusioned with church as usual, who are striving to live their Christian faith in a postmodern culture.
Those within the movement value authenticity and creativity and emphasize the social dimensions of the gospel. Outsiders often describe the emerging church as a reaction to evangelicalism's more fundamentalist incarnations. Many of those active in the movement were reared in church traditions that were doctrinally rigid, suspicious of culture, and intolerant of doubt. Unsurprisingly, the emerging church exhibits the opposite tendencies: they are open to culture, theologically flexible, and willing to ask hard questions.
You can see these traits in their writings. Just look at a few titles from Brian McLaren, the emerging church's most prominent voice: A Generous Orthodoxy, A New Kind of Christian, and The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity. The emerging church doesn't owe everything to evangelicalism, however. Many of these tendencies betray the influence of postmodernism.
The style and structure of emerging congregations are also unique. Iron railings, candles, dim lighting, and prayer stations were so ubiquitous early in the movement that today they've almost become clichés. Most emerging congregations have a relatively flat leadership style. Pastors are not usually called pastors (if there is a pastor at all), and many groups, such as Tribe in Los Angeles, prefer to meet "in the round" when they gather for worship—a physical representation of their flat leadership structure and egalitarian values.
The emerging church has been criticized for its theological innovations and its more liberal views on hot-button issues (the movement's most prominent leaders have either accepted, or refused to say where they stand on, homosexuality). It has also suffered divisions from within. Some leaders that identified with the movement early on (such as Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll) have distanced themselves from it. Recently, several key leaders announced that they are dropping the emerging label altogether, causing one commentator to proclaim that the movement is dead.
This is a huge topic, far too large to explore in detail here. If you want to learn more, I recommend reading Emerging Churches (Baker) by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger or Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Zondervan) by D.A. Carson.
Oh, one last thing. The unofficial drink of the emerging church is Guinness, just in case you were wondering.
share this
Tags used in this post:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2008
Comments
Thanks, Drew, for the helpful view of the emergent church. We have been somewhat confused by the term and concerned about friends who claim to be in it. One of our concerns is that their desire to fit in with today's culture has made them almost unrecognizable from the world.
Posted by: Irene Caldwell | February 12, 2009 11:36 AM
hi tim. i agree with a few of these and disagree with much more. overseas, where i work as a missionary, most of the new churches we start would be considered "emerging" but they are not "disillusioned " with church - they ARE church.
we DO see it as a movement that is at least 20 years old and we see USA as quite behind many other countries.
most of us do not think Carson represented the movement well with his book. gibbs and bolger is better. thanks for recommending it.
Posted by: aj | February 13, 2009 5:13 AM
Thanks for your comment AJ. I intentionally chose two books with completely different takes on the emerging church. While I agree that Carson's book is, at times, too hard on the movement, the Gibbs and Bolger book certainly errs on the other side. I think that reading both would provide a good balance.
Drew
Posted by: Drew Dyck | February 13, 2009 10:22 AM
The approach we have to take I believe is there is a difference with Emergent and Emerging Church movements. One Emergent is far more the 50's type coffee house "what do you think" and Emerging is more of an open marketplace focus of blending styles without losing the biblical core of Truth, Way and Life.
Emergent is unhealthy - Emerging is healthy and needed to move away from the Evangelical stiffness and good old boy club.
Posted by: StephenHiggins | February 14, 2009 1:09 PM
Drew, I would recommend The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier by Tony Jones as the best history of the movement. I have a review on our web site here: http://www.ill-legalism.com/thenewchristiansbrrp.htm
Jones was there at the beginning and has the most accessible explanations of anyone else I've read, including Carson.
Posted by: rick | February 15, 2009 6:03 AM
And certainly also a valid criticism of the Boomers' non-denominational, suburban mega-churches.
And I seem to recall Paul writing about this some time ago.
Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2009 10:16 AM
I think the unofficial drink is Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2009 5:42 AM