"report from the battlefield"

A report from the battle field:
Whilst the emerging church is emerging, the modern church continues to battle against postmodernity, that torpedo doesn't seem to be a hit, the e.c.-submarine however can expect a full blow from the modern church! Did these guys forget that they are actually on the same side?! Maybe the e.c. could expect this after having surfaced so boldly with the flag of protest raised... but there might be more danger ahead for the emerging church! It looks like postmodernism could propose a threat in a short while. It might be time to submerge. Look, the guy on the bow, is it Spencer Burke? is it Brian McLaren? He'd better get inside and prepare for diving! But no, he's watching p.m. closely, trying to figure out, is it friend or foe?
Hopefully the modern church will decide to call back their torpedo('s?). The next stages of this conflict will be very intresting and important indeed!

(any suggestions on how to procede? Do you agree with the picture, disagree? Let's make this highly interactive!=) Why don't you leave a comment and tell me how you see this 'conflict' evolving. Where are you standing at present? What do you expect for the future? I'll try and figure out new pictures as our conversation evolves=))

the right gospel...?

After having spent a considerable amount of time reading the discussion between Scott Mcknight and Spencer Burk (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1319 --> 114 comments!!) and all those who thought they had something to say, I do think there's a few things that haven't been said.
I'm writing on theology within the emerging church (quite a difficult chapter... some claim there is no such thing, some write a book an emerging theology for emerging churches...can't be more obvious), and I wonder how sharp i can make the distinction between the group of universalists (Spencer Burke and co.) and the Scott Mcknights saying: 'Spencer, you're a good guy, but i have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian theology back into your guide to eternity.'

Now those are pretty harsh words, but I'm still trying to figure out what this means. Obviously Spencer Burke still considers himself a part of the emerging church, but if the emerging church is that which Scott McKnight and Ray Anderson think it to be, then I don't see how these two groups can still be considered one entity (i.e. the emerging church).

And think about it this way: how would Paul have responded to the gospel presented by Spencer Burke and co.? I'm all for love and respect, but could it be that Paul would have said: 'let him be eternally condemned' (gal.1:8) and again 'let him be eternally condemned!' (gal.1:9)

I'm just wondering, how tolerant will people in emerging churches be in this respect? I think it will determine the future of this conversation for a great deal...

nonsense

What's up with all the ec bloggers posting nonsense? Sometimes their 'creative' interludes are entertaining, but often I feel like it's a complete waste of time to read them... Anyways, perhaps a creative interlude from my side will attract all you blog readers =) after all we live in a visual culture, rather than logo-centric.

Here is my artisitic monstrosity, created in a moment of ennui (at times i get quite distracted, like every student i hope?):

bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 5

Okay, this is interesting =)...
Anderson writes about the right gospel, and, again the right gospel is the gospel of the Emerging Church. Now, I've never really studied Galatians, so perhaps it makes perfect sense that I never thought about what he writes, but it sounds quite likely to me, and I must say it gives more value to the whole Jerusalem-Antioch theme.

The gospel of the emerging church is Paul's gospel (the gospel he received from Christ by revelation). According to Paul there is no other gospel, those who proclaim another gospel are to be treated as accursed. This other gospel... came out of Jerusalem! Jerusalem sends delegates to Antioch (certain people from James (gal.2:12) to make them stick to some aspects of the law. In gal.4:24 is says: One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
According to Anderson, the Jerusalem 'that is above' is antioch. (see comment 1)

Paul proclaimed a gospel of grace, the gospel of Abraham. Jerusalem had the gospel of Moses, in bondage to the law and seeking to bind others.
And then Anderson goes on to the whole 'old wine, new wineskin' theme. The gospel being the old wine (luke 5:39, And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, 'the old is good'.) see comment 2
The point that Anderson makes is that any sort of structure/wineskin is allowed, as long as the vintage wine of the gospel is in it. He then warns that 'he sensed in some of the more recent literature on the ec the taste of new wine, rather than the vintage gospel. In other words: a lot about new methods, multi-media, creative worship etc. without a clear and compelling gospel.

Some comments:
1) I can't believe I've always read past these verses without thinking a bit harder. I always sort of smiled and though: That good ol' Paul, aint he a good ol' pharisee using his allegoric hermeneutic well?;-) And just leave it to that, because I couldn't quite follow his reasoning anyway. But this whole story sounds quite likely imo.
2) I've never really made an exegesis on this passage, but i don't think the old wine is the gospel. It says: And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. That seems to be the core of the passage, now what use would it be for Jesus to make this warning if 'new wine' is not necessairy (as Anderson claims)? I find it a tricky passage, the context isn't too helpful (the bridegroom and fasting and the garment with the patch), what do you guys think?=)

2.7 Reflection

One positive aspect, clearly influenced by postmodernism, is the Emerging Churches’ concern with being relevant in whatever indigenous community they are present. Within missionary circles this issue has been dealt with for a long time, but it’s quite a new thing to approach the Western world as a diverse entity, that requires different strategies
Regarding epistemology I have to restrict myself. Again, this thesis is not trying to assess the philosophical foundations of the movement, rather it wants to look at the current status of their conversation and assess their church practice and its theological and biblical implications. Also, if there is one place where I have to stress the diversity of the movement, it would be here. The opinions of many within the Emerging Church differ hugely. I do think however that for the movement in its entirety a warning is in place. Their tendency is not so much to deny the existence of truth, but they do question our ability to say much about that truth, sometimes to such an extent that their claims to faith become rather shaky, a lot shakier than the resolute faith statements in scripture. In fact the early church was persecuted for this very reason: they did not worship any other gods and claimed to have the one true faith.
Along similar lines I think their tolerance towards other religions as described by Gibbs and Bolger is being put in a rather stunning and unbiblical way. I already mentioned one example from Spencer Burke’s community in California, but the book continues:

With a focus on the kingdom rather than on church, people find that their relationship with other faiths changes. “As someone who was a Buddhist for twenty years, I have a deep respect for other people’s faiths,” says Dave Sutton (…) “My understanding is that if the kingdom is what God is about, then God might be involved in other faiths…. We very much see our work in relation to the unique person and work of Christ. If other religions are involved in that work, that is fine.”(…) Ben Edson reports, “We had a guy from the Manchester Buddhist center come to Sanctus1 a couple weeks ago and talk about Buddhist approaches to prayer. We didn’t talk about the differences between our faiths. We didn’t try to convert him. He was welcomed and fully included and was really pleased to have been invited…”[1]

This is a view that approaches universalism. More will be said about this in the next chapter.
Luckily there are also more balanced views on this issue, Ray Anderson:

We must take care that emerging churches do not become just another form of spirituality but a movement of God’s Spirit on the creative edge of the kingdom of God breaking into the various cultures of the present age, often in conflict with existing forms of spirituality.[2]

If there is one thing that has been particularly frustrating in studying the Emerging Church and especially their understanding of postmodernism, it’s their tendency to redefine words. Thinking and working from a deconstructionist point of view words are to them nothing but a cultural expression that refer ‘to other words, which in turn refer to other words, and so on…’[3] As a result they use words in a very subjective way, not conforming to existing definitions but using the words in whatever way they find helpful. Steve Taylor’s book for example, The Out of Bounds Church, tries to be so hip and trendy that it’s filled with buzz-words that hardly capture the intended meaning. It talks about ‘Koru Theology’, ‘Creativity Downloaded’, ‘Redemptive Portals’ and ‘Missional Interface’. In my opinion it is very unhelpful to, whilst talking about the same subject, use different words and different (sometimes altogether opposite) definitions, especially if it’s being done with such consistency and apparent carelessness. After all they admit there are contradictions within their writings. Such deliberate attempts to come up with inconsistent ideas, to me, speak of neglect of intellect and in this way they take the discussion to a totally new (lower) level. After all, how can one criticize, make suggestions or give feedback to a writer who refuses to have one point of view?

Overall I would say the movement in its entirety finds more congruence with the term ‘postmodernity’ than with ‘postmodernism’, the latter being the philosophical ideas behind the current paradigm. Their understanding of postmodernity as a cultural phenomenon in the Western world is good. In books like A is for Abductive and
The Out of Bounds Church they deal quite exhaustively with the diversity of the western culture. What I really do miss though, is just about any critical remarks about postmodernity. It’s always portrait as a new, radically better time than any other time before (‘there is no better time to be in ministry than now’[4], ‘we believe that the postmodern condition, rather than being a threat to Christian theology, can actually return us to the roots of our faith and reinforce many of Christianity’s primary concerns.’[5] ) McLaren does mention both sides, but immediately chooses to stress the positive side of postmodernism:

Many see postmodernism as a threat while others see it as an exciting opportunity. Both are right. (…) Because others, like Carson, have warned us of the “ugly face”, I will focus here on the brighter side.[6]

Overall I get the impression that the Emerging Churches’ applauding for the postmodern era is hardly realistic. Or as Carson puts it: ‘the cheerleading for the idea that we have entered a radically new era, a utopia of unprecedented opportunity, fails to move me…because I just don’t believe this hype.’[7]

[1] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.132-133
[2] R.S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006) p.64
[3] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.88
[4] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.19
[5] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.23
[6] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.171
[7] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church p.83

2.6 Visual

In Chapter four I will deal with the implications of this aspect of postmodernity, for now it suffices to determine that it’s of utmost importance within Emerging Churches. About the existing, established churches they say: ‘the church is heavily “logocentric” (i.e. word-based), nervous around images, and alienated from its own image-rich pedigree.’ And about contemporary culture in contrast to modern culture: ‘what principles and points were to moderns, metaphors and images are to people in the emerging culture.’[1] Taylor concludes: ‘We have spent many a theological year dining out on God as Word only. (…) We need to compensate by spending many a year tasting of God as image.’[2]

[1] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive pp.152-153
[2] S. Taylor, The Out of Bounds Church,p.62

2.5 Pluralism

The pluralism of society is seen as a positive feature of postmodernism. This is prevalent throughout their literature. The content of some of their books is organized in a very fragmented, unstructured way, which sometimes makes it very difficult to discover the essence of what they write about. The writers are completely aware of that, read for example this introduction to The Out of Bounds Church, by Taylor:

You can read this book much like a magazine, browsing each postcard as it catches your eye. You can read either down or across. (…) I invited a number of people to comment on the book … Their instructions were to “to disagree, to provide an example, to add a prayer or a ritual, to provide another perspective.”[1]

Sweet, Mclaren and Haselmayer choose for a lay-out in which ‘you will go trough this text at your own pace, starting where you need to, ending where you want to. We hope you will read it any way except from A to Z.’[2] (The book follows the letters of the Alphabet, introducing a few words starting with that letter that, according to the writers, tell us things about Postmodern culture.) And they acknowledge:

Perceptive readers will notice that there are apparent contradictions within these pages. Be assured that most, at least, are not accidental. Where such plural versions of postmodernity are found, the reader is invited to ponder the mystery (or laugh) rather than resolve the tension.[3]

Another result of this appreciating pluralism is their concern to communicate the gospel in different ways, depending on the context into which is spoken. ‘It is absolutely vital for the gospel to be incarnated into the thousands of subcultures that now exist in our complex, postmodern, tribalized, Western context.’[4] When reading about different faith communities all over the world it’s quite striking to see how they all have their unique features, mainly determined by the indigenous communities in which they are working.

[1] S. Taylor, The Out of Bounds Church, Learning to create a community of faith in a culture of change, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids; 2005) p.12
[2] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.29
[3] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.28
[4] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.27

2.4 Tolerance

So, taking a quick look at some of those aspects of postmodernity we find that tolerance is very important, and still very closely related to the epistemological discussion:

In a world where everyone sees things differently, where everyone lives according to differing theories…, it is far better to practice tolerance and appreciate diversity than to capsize the boat by stirring up controversy.[1]

One way in which this is expressed is the Emerging Churches’ position towards other religions. One particular community in California is described as ‘being prepared to learn from faith traditions outside the Christian fold.’[2] They have a Buddhist family in their church and visited a Buddhist temple, participating in guided meditation. ‘They reach out to other traditions, and they see them as beloved children of God.’
Both McLaren and Carson agree that this kind of postmodern tolerance can lead to intolerance.[3] McLaren: ‘Radical postmodernism rejects the truthfulness of every other belief while assuming its own position as the only universally true one.’ But: ‘In my experience, however, most postmoderns are not really this radical.’
Another way in which it is expressed is in what Frost and Hirsch call both/and thinking. ‘We have found that among many missional church leaders and thinkers there is a concern to balance ideas that are normally considered opposites.’[4]

[1] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.164
[2] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.132
[3] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.164, D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church p.69
[4] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.27

2.3 Epistemology

Within scholarly circles the main issue at hand in postmodernism is epistemology.

Modernism is often pictured as pursuing truth, absolutism, linear thinking, rationalism, certainty, the cerebral as opposed to the affective… Postmodernism, by contrast, recognizes how much of what we “know” is shaped by the culture in which we live, is controlled by emotions and aesthetics and heritage, and in fact can only be intelligently held as part of a common tradition, without overbearing claims to being true or right.[1]

And even Stanley Grenz agrees with Carson on this issue.[2] Yet quite a few Emerging Church writers seem to understand postmodernism at best as something more than epistemology, at worst as something altogether different than epistemology[3]. ‘The support for this understanding of postmodernism’ (i.e. The understanding that the shift in epistemology is the main thing that defines postmodernism) ‘is so widespread and common that it is curious that some in the emerging church question it.’[4] If it comes to this aspect of postmodernism the Emerging Church is often a bit vague. Most of them don’t go as far as to be completely relativist, but they do distant themselves quite strongly from the absolutism of modernism.[5] Leonard Sweet shows appreciation for deconstruction as being ‘One of the most important philosophical/interpretive concepts of postmodernity.’ And further on: ‘Learning to understand and respect deconstruction may be the hardest challenge of all for modern Christian leaders.’ [6] Bolger and Gibbs write: ‘Emerging church leaders are under no compulsion to stand up and fight for truth.’[7] In their official response to criticism however they write: ‘we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters… we are not moral or epistemological relativists.’[8] At present the majority of the Emerging Church writers seem to be working towards, and expecting a synthesis of the absolutism of modernism and the relativism of postmodernism.

While this synthesis will come, one day, it doesn't seem to [b]e helpful to critique [a] group of pastors for not having delivered it yet. The chief virtue of Carson's book is its clear and repeated insistence that we shun this false antithesis. The chief shortcoming of Carson's book is its own failure to move beyond this antithesis.[9]

And Ken Archer is right. When Carson writes a chapter with his personal reflections on postmodernism’s contributions and challenges, he names three models ‘to help us think’ (respectively a fusion of horizons, hermeneutical spirals and the asymptotic approach)

without actually proving, objectively, any of them.[10] (…) Carson's third way beyond the false antithesis of absolute realism and subjectivism - what he calls soft postmodernism - is no third way at all, as it avoids answering the tough questions of either realism or subjectivism.[11]

And so the pot calls the kettle black. Because not only this ‘group of pastors’ can not find this third way (The solutions I have found so far are merely a gently described version of relativism or absolutism rather than an actual synthesis[12]), even someone like Grenz, a very influential theologian and scholar within the Emerging Church, doesn’t resolve this tension[13] and firmly rejects the postmodern epistemology.[14]
Anderson goes back on a very Barthian theology when dealing with epistemology. As Karl Barth he sees revelation as something senkrecht von oben. He introduces a phrase ‘naïve realism’, truth revealed and confessed. We find this naïve realism with the man whom Jesus healed, who was blind from birth who said: ‘One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see’(John 9:25). We also find it with Peter when confessing: ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’(Mat.16:13-17). This of course doesn’t give any answers regarding the truth of those faith statements.
Another issue in Carson’s critique that many disagree with is his focus on the Emerging Churches’ epistemology:

The debate cannot be reduced to epistemology (…) I do not dispute that epistemology is crucial; I am only saying it is not the whole thing. What about the “holism”? and the “communal” nature of the movement? and especially its “missional” focus? What about how so many see the “work of God” in huge and embracing terms?[15]

One can wonder whether these things mentioned (holism, communal nature, missional focus) are actually part of this debate. We discuss epistemology because the Emerging Church wants to be relevant to postmodern culture, and epistemology is a foundational building block of that culture. When talking about holism, communal nature and missional focus we don’t necessarily talk about postmodern culture, rather these are elements of the Christian community that have always made them attractive to any culture, often though these elements confront that culture, rather than conform to it.

But if we want to value the movement for what they claim to be, we need to take a look at some other aspects of postmodernism that the Emerging Church understands to be important. Andrew Jones refers to the difference between postmodernism and postmodernity, a common separation in the literature (SEE FOOTNOTE 1 PAGE 2)
(…) postmodernism is not the same as postmodernity. And the cultural impact of the postmodern age (world after modernity) has significantly affected American life in the areas of architecture, cuisine, art, media, social conditions, aesthetics, economics, etc.[16]

Sweet and McLaren also state that postmodernism is more than philosophy. After having mentioned four variants of postmodernism as a philosophy (specifically Post-structuralism, the new Marxism, Neo pragmatism and Feminism) they argue:

The more interesting forms of postmodernism are the ones featured in this primer: as intellectual discourse, as style and posture-embodiment, and as culture. In fact, we can observe postmodernity developing as an emerging culture even before postmodernism as a worldview or philosophy is fully formed.[17]

[1] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church p.27
[2] S. Grenz, Renewing the centre: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2000) p.185, S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.5-8
[3] David Mills, The Emergent Church, – Another Perspective. A Critical Response to D. A. Carson’s Staley Lectures pp.5,6 (http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/millsd/mills_staley_response.pdf)
[4] J.S. Hammett, An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church Movement http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf
[5] Mark Driscoll, very involved in the Emerging Church in its early days, divides the group into three distinct types of Christians: ‘Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. (…)Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e. g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). (…)[T]hey propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches. (…) Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world.’ (This last group would be strong relativist in their approach to truth) M. Driscoll, A Pastoral Perspective on the Emerging Church (http://criswell.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch)
[6] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive pp.87-90
[7] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.124
[8] http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1151
[9] http://kenarcher.typepad.com/theological_thought/2005/06/review_of_da_ca.html
[10] Interesting to see that Ken Archer, who is expecting a synthesis between absolutism and relativism uses phrases like ‘proving objectively’, by doing so showing that his epistemology is perhaps more modern than he thought it to be.
[11] http://kenarcher.typepad.com/theological_thought/2005/06/review_of_da_ca.html
[12] Andrew Jones for example writes: ‘It seems to me that a more or less postmodern church does not need to claim that the story we tell is absolutely true in the sense that it ought in principle to be accepted by all people as true. All we need to assert is that it is for us, as a community among other communities, in effect ‘absolutely’ true - not in any rationalist-foundational sense but - existentially - because we have accepted its claim on our lives. We have been called to give currency and credibility to a particular narrative about God, and to do so we must speak and act as though the story about God were absolutely true - or at least true enough to give our lives for. I wonder if perhaps this sort of understanding does not allow us to retain both the force of the truth claim and the particularity of the community that makes the claim. The postmodern unbeliever, who, as we know, is incredulous towards metanarratives, is not going to be asking whether this account of reality is absolutely true. His or her interest will be in whether it is a lived narrative worth engaging with.’ (http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/682)
[13] In his discourse on the value of hermeneutics he even utilizes the language of the asymptotic method. When writing about Dilthey’s inductive exegetical process he says: ‘…it will only bring us close to the truth.’ S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.103
[14] S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.165-167
[15] S. McKnight, http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=14
[16] http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/12/emerging_church_1.html
[17] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive,p.241

2.2 Definition

There is no single definition of postmodernism that is being utilized by all the Emerging Church writers or her critics. And as Carson notes ‘neither modernism nor postmodernism is easy to define’.[1]
Sweet and Mclaren’s seem to be representative for the entire movement when they write:

Because we see postmodernism as more a formative spirit and mentality than a philosophy, we resist trying to define it yet with finality or precision. (Similarly, it would have been premature to try to define or judge modernity as it was arising in Copernicus’s time, long before Descartes and others came along to express it in its maturing forms.)’[2]

Stanley Grenz, one of the Emerging Churches’ key thinkers, describes the history of the term postmodern as follows:

The term postmodern may first have been coined in the 1930s to refer to a major historical transition already under way and as the designation for certain developments in the arts. But postmodernism did not gain widespread attention until the 1970s. First it denoted a new style of architecture. Then it invaded academic circles, originally as a label for theories expounded in university English and philosophy departments. Eventually it surfaced as the description for a broader cultural phenomenon.[3]

Some people, especially in Europe, have questioned the legitimacy of us still using the word because so often it causes more confusion than clarity. McLaren chooses to ‘persist in using the term, not because of stubbornness, but because I think it’s the best term we have so far, and actually, I think the term is pretty helpful (as well as annoying).’[4] In the rest of this article, published on http://www.emergentvillage.com/, McLaren describes his view on postmodernism. He reasons that the early stages of postmodernism were/are of a more negative tone, just like all other changes in culture started with complaints about and an overall deconstructive attitude towards the existing paradigm. ‘Eventually, some… must start trying to articulate something better, but the negative stage can go on for quite a while.’ What follows is a warning not to be anti-modern, but to be looking for a synthesis, not rejection. ‘Postmodernity will more likely seek to integrate rationality with things beyond rationality, things like imagination, intuition, even faith.’[5]

[1] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church p.25
[2] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.240 (my italics)
[3] Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996) p.2
[4] B. McLaren, Why I Still Use the Word Postmodern (http://www.emergenvillage.com/downloads/resources/mclaren/whyiusepostmodern.pdf)
[5] He probably means postmodernism rather than postmodernity. The difference being: ‘Postmodernism is the "cultural and intellectual phenomena" while postmodernity is focused on social and political outworkings in society.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernity)

2.1 Introduction

2.1 Introduction
We have seen in chapter 1 that the Emerging Churches’ primary concern is to be relevant to postmodern culture. And even though Andrew Jones (one of the more respected bloggers of the Emerging Church) claims that they ‘are NOT infatuated by postmodernism, defined by postmodernism, shaped by postmodernism or called to defend it,’[1] their literature often seems to show us otherwise. Sweet and McLaren write about postmodernity being:

A broad, diverse, and often paradoxical emerging culture defined as having passed trough modernity and being ready to move to something better beyond it.[2]

It is therefore absolutely vital to realize what these people understand postmodernism to be, and secondly whether they are right in their observations of contemporary culture.
[1] http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/07/emerging_church.html
[2] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.239 (my italics)

bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 4

The chapter is called 'It's about the Spirit, not just spirituality', which reflects the warning that is given early in the chapter that contemporary protestant spirituality can tend more toward the human spirit than the Holy Spirit, Preoccupated as it is with personal edification and the internal world of an indiviual.
Anderson then argues that people have an instrinsic spiritual nature, that includes emotional, mental and even physical well-being. 'The kind of spirituality that we embrace is dependent on the kind of spirit that we seek.' (p.62) We therefore need a clear understanding of the Spirit to have a spirituality that is both stimulating and 'safe'. 'We must take care that emerging churches do not become just another form of spirituality but a movement of God's Spirit on the creative edge of the kingdom of God breaking into the carious cultures of our present age often in conflict with existing forms of spirituality (p.64, my italics).
Again (as we read more in emerging circles) he sees spirituallity as a holistic principle that extends to the entire spectrum of life.

The emergent theology of the Spirit, again inspired by the church in Antioch and Paul, is not to be an accesory, as it was in Jerusalem, rather it should be the enginge that propels and the fuel that empowers (p.69). Here Anderson starts to repeat himself (Jerusalem having the ethnic and religious tradition and the tradition of the twelve, Antioch being the emerging church that manifested a Spirit-derected life that issued in a messianic mission).

Paul's experience on the road to the Damascus is used as an example of how knowledge of Christ without the Spirit is still to be blind. Paul was only filled with the Spirit after three days. (see comment 2).

Spirituality is to lead to 'a deeper knowledge of Christ and the edification of the community trough Christ.(comment 3) Also Anderson writes that Paul seems to have trusted the Spirit of Christ to provide guidance and leadership for the emerging churches not trough strong top-down leadership but trough the community (even in Corinth)

Some comments:
1) Good warnings troughout the chapter. The ec needs to remember that without a strong biblical basis and emergent theology, it will be like a sailing ship without rudder ...drifting aimlessly... over the open waters of contemporary religiosity (p.71). This warning in contrast to Spencer Burke's community: they have a Buddhist family in their church and visited a Buddhist temple, participating in guided meditation. ‘They reach out to other traditions, and they see them as beloved children of God.’ (Gibbs and Bolger, emerging churches). I don't know though whether Spencer Burke still represents the emerging churches well, after having followed his discussion with Scott McKnight on universalism (www.jesuscreed.org)
2) How does that relate to the Spirit being the spirit of Christ? How come Paul first meets the ascended Christ and only later is filled with the Spirit? Apparently there's something that is added to ones' faith in the gospel, what is this something?
3) What is this deeper knowledge of Christ? I actually think it is a spiritual experience, it is then expressed in deeds/obedience/following Christ as evidence of this experience.

bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 3

In chapter two Anderson writes about Christ, which according him is more than christology. Anderson goes back on a very Barthian theology when dealing with epistemology. As Karl Barth he sees revelation as something senkrecht von oben. He introduces a phrase ‘naïve realism’, truth revealed in a confession before it's encoded in a creed (p.43) We find this naïve realism with the man whom Jesus healed, who was blind from birth who said: ‘One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see’(John 9:25). We also find it with Peter when confessing: ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’(Mat.16:13-17). This of course doesn’t give any answers regarding the truth of those faith statements, and thus the tension remains between relativism and absolutism. The issue does become a bit less important though on a personal level. After all, both Peter and the man that were blind from birth would be convinced of the truth of what they said.
He stresses, time and time again, the importance of the continuity between the work of Jesus on the earth 2000 years ago and the work of the Spirit of the resurected and incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, that was poured out on pentecost.
Anderson goes on with the same contrast between the Jerusalem believers and Paul. He points out that, despite their three years with Jesus, despite pentecost, the twelve have contributed very little to our knowledge of Jesus. 'The emphasis was on the Spirit of the Lord Jesus as a source of power rather than on Christ himself as their contemporary.' (p.50) It is largely from Paul that we receive our knowledge of the Christ of the emergent church (here he means Antioch, not the emerging churches of the present day), whereas he most likely never met Jesus in real life. But Paul doesn't seem to make a distinction between the historical and ascended Jesus "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord" (1 cor.9:1)
Then follows a bit on Bonhoeffer that I find hard to understand, about Christ excisting as a community and the social structure of human personhood being intrinsically spiritual or something =), i sort of hear what he's saying (later on he summarizes: the Christ that Paul knew was not only his contemporary (...) but the Christ that connects us to humanity from the very beginning and in every generation), but I never really thought about it this way, and I'm not sure what all the implications would be...
He says emerging churches in our generation are not emerging out of the universalizing and absolutizing period of modernity, just as the church in Antioch wasn't post-Judaism. The Christ of the emerging church for Paul was pre-Moses, pre-Abraham, going back to Adam. 'This is an important distinction for it frees the emerging church from the criticism that it is just another version of modernity.' (see comment 3)

Some comments:
1) Orthodox Christology: one can recite the creeds without ever answering the question "who do you say I am?" (p.43) In other words, a personal relationship with Christ is more than having the right faith statements.
2) Very interesting that he says that we know the Christ of the emergent church mainly from Paul, and that his whole chapter dedicated to Christology shows this. So far I've always understood that emerging churches take the gospels as the main source for how to 'be like Christ', and do mission accordingly.
3) Well, to be honest, I've never heard that criticism, maybe from non-christians?
Secondly i fail to see how the example of Antioch helps, because in a sense it was post-Judaism. All comes back to the question: what is post-? It would have helped if he would have answered that question first, because later he uses it again: 'those who are in christ are neither lawbreakers, nor merely post-lawkeepers but 'law-completed'.' Again it's quite unclear what he means by post-.

Emerging Church or emerging churches

I think I'll change this in my first chapter. I keep on talking about the Emerging Church (capitals, singular) and by doing so stress the unity of the movement. I think it's better to speak about emerging churches (no capitals, plural) to stress the diversity and leave room for exceptions, what do you think?

Lighting candles?

Yesterday I listened to a podcast of Tony Jones talking to Karen Ward, after that I went to the website of her church and spent some time there. I ended up here where you can light candles. Why did this completely fail to move me? I just sat there, staring at the screen, clicking away on a few candles to see how it worked... listening to the music, wondering why the graphics looked aweful and the soundquality was miserable. Wondering whether my candles would keep burning if I closed my web browser... no spiritual experience at all!

1) I'm getting old, quite unlikely, I'm 21
2) I'm too Dutch, too down to earth... might be part of the problem
3) I wasn't in a very spiritual mood...
4) I came unprepared
5) I think the whole point of lighting a candle (if you are to light one, personal I guess) is to go out of your house, go to a place where there is silence, go there with a purpose and basically just help yourself to intercede... I can't see how a webpage can be that place, am I the only one?

bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 2

Chapter 1 of Anderson's book deals with the contrast between Jerusalem and Antioch. The difference between the two is not so much geography, rather it's theology. What does he mean?
Where Jerusalem had the kairos-moment of pentecost, very soon after that they incorporated this event into a movement with a high degree of continuity with the tradition of the twelve. He calls this first-order change, based on common sense, evolutional rather than revolutional.

Antioch, however, he describes as a moment (kairos, second order change, revolutionairy) leading to a new kind of church and a new gospel of grace. The time had come for the new messianic community, in Antioch... not in Jerusalem. 'Emerging churches can be understood as a kairos moment in our time' (p.22)

He shows that 'new wine does not fit well in old wineskins', the Jerusalem church went back to tradition/continuity soon after pentecost: They had a central point of authority (the 12), they had someone in Judas' place because they needed that structure, they wanted gentiles to observe the law and be circumcised and overall, they relied more on religion than on revelation.

Saul of Tarsus in contrast to that relied solely on Jesus' revelation on the road to damascus, did not yield to the authority of the twelve, did not require the gentiles to be circumcised or keep the mosaic law.
Anderson calls Paul's theology a 'vintage theology': it keeps its original flavour but increases in vigor. 'For Paul, the nature of the church could only be established trough continuity and discontinuity. His theology of the church was developed as a theology of the mission of the Spirit as the continuing of Jesus as Son of God.'

The aim of the book is:
'to set forth a new vision for an emergent church theology that is biblically based and that is singed by the glames of a burning bush and touched by the tongues of fire lighted at Pentecost.'

There's a lot more to it, but you'll have to read that for yourselfes=)

Some comments:
1) What a great thing to finally read a book by someone who's involved in an emerging church and actually uses the bible! Only now i realise how few scripture references I've seen troughout the last few months.
2) I'm not sure about how he uses the Jerusalem-Antioch illustration. I find he portrays the differences in rather stunning extremes. I'm not an expert on early church history, but to me it feels a bit like another 'false anti-thesis'. In fact it makes me feel a lot like when i read stuff about 'the' modern church in contrast with 'the' emerging/postmodern church... anyway, i think it's intended more like an illustration so I will try not to let this spoil the fun=)
3) I'm not sure i totally understand his moment-movement thing. He admits that moments can become movements, but in my view that's just as necessairy as inavoidable. A moment can only last so long (depending on the context) and then becomes a movement. Which is a good thing in a way. When at a (youth) conference, experiencing God, fellowship etc. You want that moment to last forever, but that moment normally lasts a week, after that it's time to take the things you have learned and make them into a continuous part of your life, a movement. Right?

bookreview "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches" 1

I'm currently working on my third chapter (second chapter will soon be online) in which I'm trying to deal with theology and the bible in emerging churches. I think putting it that way makes sure I leave room for the diversity within emerging churches.

I bought Ray S. Anderson's book An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, and the next few days I will try to summarize and review the book (who am I? but it will just help me to understand the book, so even if no one ever reads this... =)

In the preface Anderson writes that he doesn't intend to write about postmodernity, and only partially about emerging churches.

Troughout the book he uses the illustration of Jerusalem (being the dogmatic, religious centre of first century Christianity) in contrast with Antioch (the emerging church, missional, filled with the Spirit, and the place where an emergent theology was born, mainly developed by Paul troughout his ministry). This contrast is 'for the purpose of sharpening the focus on the content and direction of the emergent theology uniquely envisioned and proclaimed by the apostle Paul.'

Answering the question 'what is an emerging theology' he mentiones all the ec's key-words that I've read somuch about the last few months: messianic, missional, revelational, reformational, kingdom coming, kingdom living, eschatological and incarnational. His short description under eschatological didn't sound quite as immanent as N.T. Wright's view though? I'm sure we'll readmore about that later on.

Quite striking I found this statement: 'Emerging churches are a Bible-teaching and a Bible-reading community.' I haven't found many books by ec writers and thinkers that 'teach the Bible' (there are some exceptions).

Welcome

I'm Jesse, 21 years old. At the moment I'm in my final year of an interdenominational bible college in Holland. I'm writing my final thesis about the emerging church/emerging churches because I have a heart for local churches, and yes, i can see that there are (a lot of) things that we can do different.
My actual thesis is:

Does the Emerging Church offer a Biblically/theologically sound alternative for practical ecclesiology within a postmodern society?

I have uploaded my first chapter, thinking this would be the best way to be part of the 'conversation' rather than being an external observer. I would highly appreciate just about any comments. If you could perhaps even read just one section of my first chapter (the first version that is) that would be fantastic. Any suggestions about books that I used, statements that I make, critique from my side (in section 1.7)? please let me know!

Do keep in mind that it's only for a BA (Apparently there's people outthere who've done their Phd. on this topic!!) and that I'm quite restricted in terms of number of words and time that I can spend on it...

Thanks!

Jesse

ps. Chapters will be uploaded as I make progress.

1.7 Reflection

1.7 Reflection:

The tendency within the movement to call themselves a ‘conversation’ I have found both confusing and helpful. Confusing because a conversation can only be summarized at a certain point in time, but one will never know when this conversation will end and conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions which then can be confirmed, confronted, rebuked, accepted etc. At present many difficult questions that are asked by critics are being dodged and often the writers within the Emerging movement seem to be reluctant to move beyond the ‘conversation-stage’. This results in contradicting passages in their literature, unclear statements and an overall difficult group of people to respond to (there are always exceptions to the rule).
It’s a helpful term because the experience of studying the Emerging Church is precisely the experience of having a conversation in which different people express their opinions, respond to each other, ask questions etc. The problem is though that there are people participating in this dialogue who don’t consider themselves part of the Emerging Church, such as Carson, Colson and Driscoll. One could say that the conversation is bigger than the movement itself.
Two things about the Emerging Church movement that I have found very honorable are their honesty in doing theology (authenticity as wikipedia calls it) and their passion for mission.
Because of their honesty they are often portrayed as heretics and almost antichrist-like figures. They leave a lot of room for the mystery of faith, in fact so much, that many (modern) evangelical Christians will often feel as if they let go of ‘truth’ altogether. McLaren however says: ‘I am an amateur pastor and a hack theologian, but I care about truth.’[1] At the same time he acknowledges that ‘[w]ords of truth will not be less important, but they will be fewer and simpler and softer if they are to have power. (…) Our words will seek to be servants of mystery, not removers of it as they were in the old world.’[2] At first this seems to refer only to their approach to theology, and therefore doesn’t really apply to this thesis since it tries to deal with the practical ecclesiological rather than with the theological and philosophical side of things. I do think though that these two are firmly intertwined which I will show in chapter three.
Their concern with mission is truly admirable. Many of the emerging writers put their missiology at the core of their identity as a community. ‘The church … is by nature a missional community…the mission itself leads to the creation of an authentic community (aka the kingdom of God), in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.’[3]
Frost and Hirsch show this same passion throughout their entire book, starting with the subtitle ‘innovation and mission for the 21st Century Church’. They say:

We both believe that if we aim at ministry, we seldom get to do much mission. But if we aim at mission, we have to do ministry because ministry is the means by which mission is achieved.[4]

I think this is a very helpful correction to the practical ecclesiology of many churches. Evangelical Christians are sometimes so caught up in their relatively safe and easy church life that they loose every affinity with ‘the world out there’. By (re)introducing and prioritizing concepts like incarnation and ‘interpathy’[5] the emerging, missional church tries to put first things first again.
Something that in my view is of concern is their understanding of their place in church history.
As noted, the majority of Emerging Church leaders come from a traditional, often fundamentalist background and protests against that background.[6] That doesn’t necessarily mean that the result of this protest is wrong (in fact many good movements in history were started out of protest), it does mean that a warning is in place since the pendulum swing of an anti movement tends to swing too far to the other end and cause damage on the way. A predicament that they willingly admit (‘A problem with emphasizing deconstruction is that it can too readily result in deconstruction’[7]) and at the same time seem to accept as being inevitable: ‘Emerging churches are truly pioneering and thus a little messiness is to be expected.’[8] Frost and Hirsch even say that ‘[t]he missional church, by its very nature, will be an anticlone of the existing traditional model.’[9] In my taste this statement is far too general. There is no such things as the existing traditional model (they completely ignore the diversity within that entity) and to me it speaks of a certain arrogance to think that their model will be the exact opposite and therefore the right model. I mainly hear the words that are not being said but are most definitely implied: the ‘existing traditional model’ completely misses the point of worshipping God, of reaching the world and of being church. This arrogance I find throughout nearly all their literature and I would hope that a more balanced, humble view will be expressed in the near future.
Besides that I’ve noticed that they tend to present ideas as if they were new and theirs, whereas in actual fact many of their suggestions sound very familiar to those who read. Two examples:
The point they make against the many dualisms of modernity is nothing new. In fact a very ‘modern’ writer devotes a chapter to this exact same topic. A.W. Tozer in his book ‘the pursuit of God’ writes:
One of the greatest hindrances to internal peace which the Christian encounters is the common habit of dividing our lives into two areas – the sacred and the secular.[10]
And:
The ‘Layman’ need never think of his humbler task as being inferior to that of his minister. Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called and his work will be as sacred as the work of the ministry.[11]

Another example is Frost and Hirsch’s position in matters of leadership. For decennia we have seen groups of people advocating the apostolic ministry and the five-fold ministry. The likes of Terry Virgo in the UK[12] and Dudley Daniel starting in South Africa[13] have been writing and teaching into these areas for years.
The area in which I think the Emerging Church is unique and really stands out from everyone else is their rigorousness in reforming the church.

[1] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.71
[2] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.89
[3] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side p.36
[4] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.149
[5] Interpathy: ‘A form of identification so deep that the guest/missionary has almost become one of the host tribe.’ M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.64
[6] Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, in Emerging Churches have included 49 interviews with emerging church leaders and writers. A quick survey shows that 29 of them have grown up in a traditional, fundamentalist church and consider that a very negative experience. P.239-328
[7] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.46
[8] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.63
[9] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.30
[10] A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, (Bletchley: Authentic Media, 2004), first published in 1948. p.85
[11] A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, pp.92-93
[12] T. Virgo, Restoration in the Church (Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications Ltd. 1985)
[13] D. Daniel, Building on Apostolic Foundations (Bryanston, SA: Every Tribe Resources, 2001)

1.6 Holistic Spirituality

1.6 Holistic spirituality

At times it is difficult to discern what exactly makes the emerging church stand out from things like the home church movement, Gen-X churches and the seeker sensitive approach. According to Gibbs and Bolger these groups do not challenge the many dualisms of modernity. They see divisions in natural and supernatural, individual and community, mind and body, public and private, belief and action as such dualisms.

In contrast the clarion call of the emerging church is Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (NIV). (…) All can be given to God in worship. All modern dualisms can be overcome.’[1]

This is also what Frost and Hirsch refer to when they talk about a messianic spirituality. They observe that Christendom spirituality has been too much concerned with retreat and reflection. They believe that these should be embraced as part of a broader spirituality that values engagement and action.[2] In comparing Hebraic Spirit and Hellenistic Consciousness they observe that the Christendom church has been greatly influenced by the latter, which results in a fascination for speculative ideas and abstract notions about God and faith (as opposed to the concrete/practical stance of Hebraism) and an overstressing of the divinity of Jesus (a subtle form of docetism). What follows is a discourse of seven salient features of a Hebraic spirituality in which they make a particularly strong case for practical monotheism. The claim to serve one God (Deut. 6:4) ‘has direct and concrete implications: It is a call for the Israelites to live their lives under the Lordship of one God and not under the tyranny of the many gods. In other words, it is a practical call not to live one’s life as if there were a different god for every sphere of life. (…) The implications are far reaching, not as simple theology, but as practical missiology. (…) It frees us to perceive life as ministry, work as mission, play as worship.’[3] Gibbs and Ryan see three primary tools to dismantle the modern church: the gospel, sacralization, and the life of the community. In this chapter I have given a short overview of their ideas on sacralization, in chapter three on the theology of the Emerging Church I will take a closer look at their understanding of the gospel and in the last chapter I will describe their ideas on community.

[1] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.67
[2] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.116
[3] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.127

1.5 Protest

1.5 Protest

That protest is mainly aimed at modern traditional evangelicalism, but also at the seeker sensitive church and the megachurch (mainly in the U.S.) as Carson accurately evaluates.[1] And this protest is very present in most of their books. In Emerging Churches for example Gibbs and Bolger often choose for headings that indicate a move away from one thing towards a ‘new’ and ‘better’ way. (E.g. Moving from a Spiritualized Gospel to an Embodied Gospel, Moving from a Dualistic to a Holistic Gospel, Moving from Privatized Faith to Public Faith etc.)
‘You can’t emerge without first submerging! What we have today is dead. We need much more than a reformation.’[2] ‘We need major change, qualitative change, revolution, rebirth, reinvention, and not just once, but repeatedly for the foreseeable future.’[3] Strong language like this is prevalent throughout all their literature.
The Emerging Church often sees the postmodern culture as a utopia of unprecedented opportunity. Working with the Hegelian idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis Sweet and McLaren write ‘We … see pre modernity as the thesis, modernity as the antithesis, and postmodernity as an attempt at synthesis.’[4]

[1] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p.36
[2] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.42
[3] B.D. McLaren, The Church on the Other Side, Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix, Revised and Expanded Edition of Reinventing Your Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1998, 2000)
[4] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive p.242

1.4 History

1.3 History

Another helpful tool in discovering the agenda of this conversation is to look at the movements’ history.
The best summarization of their history comes from Gibbs and Bolger. They see the roots of the movement with the Gen-X churches in the U.S. that began in 1986 in California. Gen-X churches’ meetings were characterized by loud worship, directed towards God and the believer, narrative preaching and later candles and the arts. ‘The bulk of church practice remained the same as their conservative Baptist, seeker, new paradigm, purpose driven predecessors; only the surface technique changed.’[1] In the nineties, a new version came on the scene, the Gen-X church that was financially supported by a megachurch. The equivalent in the U.K. would be the youth congregations such as Soul Survivor, Eternity and NGM (New Generation Ministries). A big shift was seen in 1997: “At Gen-X 2.0 … the second annual conference on Gen-X put on by the Young Leaders Network (YLN), conversations grew around the topic of postmodernity. Although the conference touted the Gen-X theme, the buzz was about moving beyond generational ministry techniques.”[2] From YLN morphed the Terra Nova Theological Project, which later became Emergent.[3] Gibbs and Bolger go on to describe the ‘aha-erlebnis’ of a number of Emerging leaders and writers (the likes of Todd Hunter, Dan Kimball, Karen Ward and Brad Cecil). They all depict a point in time on which they realized that the generational problem wasn’t the actual issue. Rather, it was the shift from modern to postmodern culture. And ‘[t]aking postmodernity seriously requires that all church practices come into question.’[4]
A conversation started about whether or not it was possible for a postmodern Christian to consider himself evangelical. Dave Tomlinson was probably the first church leader to discuss this in his book The Post-Evangelical.[5] This book is well known for the questions it dared to ask evangelical churches, but also for the lack of answers it proposed. As a result Emerging leaders in general have distanced themselves from evangelical Christianity to a certain extent, they ‘may find congruence with the term evangelical in the broad historical sense, but the label does not define these leaders as it has for evangelical leaders in the past.’[6] Postevangelical is a term that some think is unhelpful because it tends to fall into the trap of defining itself against something, which gives a lot of power to the old.
In 1998, Brian McLaren published his first book, Reinventing Your Church[7], which was a major contribution to the discussion about church in postmodern culture.
At present, the Emerging Church is the conversation between church leaders all over the world who realize that they need new forms of church that relate to that emerging culture.

Carson, one of the Emerging Churches’ critics, rightly states that ‘[i]t is difficult to gain a full appreciation of the distinctives of the movement without listening attentively to the life-stories of its leaders.’[8] And a quick survey of some of these life-stories tells us that many of the spokesmen come from a conservative, traditional background sometimes with a fundamentalist streak. And this brings us to one of the primary characteristics of the movement: protest.

[1] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.30
[2] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.32
[3] Note that Emergent US, or Emergent UK for that matter, are the more organized expressions of the Emerging Church conversation (e.g. they have a website, http://www.emergentvillage.com/, can be supported and organize events and gatherings), however they don’t represent the worldwide phenomenon of the Emerging Church. ‘[A]void using “emerging” and “emergent” interchangeably: in spite of plenty of folks making it clear that “emergent” is an association of persons and gatherings with the Emergent-US or Emergent-UK, and “emerging” being a much wider phenomenon, many continue to use these terms interchangeably. Distinguish the two if you can.’ Scott McKnight (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=604)
[4] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.34
[5] D. Tomlinson, The Post-Evangelical (London: Triangle, 1995)
[6] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.36
[7] B.D. McLaren, Reinventing Your Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998)
[8] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2005) p.14

1.3 Influences

1.3 Influences

Many of the ideas of the Emerging Church are inspired by a huge variety of writers. The most prevalent are New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, missiologist Lesslie Newbigin and theologian Stanley Grenz.[1]
N.T. Wright’s contribution exists mainly in his ideas on eschatology, and the gospel of the kingdom, which will be dealt with in chapter three. Newbigin’s books Proper Confidence[2] and The Gospel in a Pluralist Society[3] are very influential in Emerging circles. He writes a lot about faith, truth and this epistemology. His ideas will be further explored in chapter two. Stanley Grenz (died March 2005) was well known for his ideas on a communitarian triune God and how this affects Christian communities.

[1] Gibbs and Bolger also mention John Howard Yoder and David Bosch, however, I will restrict myself to the biggest influences. (Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.49)
[2] L. Newbigin, Proper Confidence, Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995)
[3] L. Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989)

1.2 Characteristics

1.2 Characteristics
A further explanation of this definition can be given in different ways. Gibbs and Bolger come up with nine practices found in Emerging Churches:
Emerging Churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.[1]

Wikipedia describes four values: authenticity, missional living, narrative theology and Christ-likeness.[2] ‘Missional’ is a new word that is very popular among Emerging people because:

it goes beyond the older Christian terms like “mission” and “missionary,” and because it is being defined holistically. To be missional means to embrace a holistic gospel – it is for the whole person (heart, soul, mind, and strength), for the whole society (politics, economy, culture, environment), and for the whole world. Missional avoids the constant bantering between Evangelicals and Liberals over social justice and evangelism, and it avoids the 20th Century political theorists regular diatribes against colonialism. Just what that “mission” is also quite clear for the EM if rarely defined in detail: the mission is the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus.[3]

We will look at the practical way in which this mission is accomplished more detailed in chapter four.
By ‘Narrative theology’ they mean a renewed focus and appreciation of the tradition of Christianity that has ‘a priceless galleria of images, stories, metaphors, rituals, and hymns as well as historians, philosophers, dramatists, novelists, poets, scientists and prophets.’[4] Narrative theology, also called referred to as post liberal theology, is often seen as the opposite of systematic theology. I will look at this further in chapter three.

Frost and Hirsch discern three major principles of the missional church (“The missional church is incarnational, not attractional, in its ecclesiology. (…) [It] is messianic, not dualistic, in its spirituality. (…) [And] adopts an apostolic mode of leadership”[5]) and four characteristics of emerging communities that deserve special consideration: “proximity spaces, shared projects, commercial enterprise, and emerging indigenous faith communities.”[6] By proximity spaces they mean “places or events where Christians and not-yet-Christians can interact meaningfully with each other.”[7] Shared projects refer to “joint projects between the Christian community and the host community.”[8] Commercial enterprise is seen as “bringing some intrinsic value to a community”[9] when planting a church is impossible. The emerging indigenous faith communities are seen as an absolutely vital result of all this interaction with a host subculture because “[t]he best hermeneutic of the gospel is a community of Christians living it out.”[10]

[1] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches. Creating Christian community in postmodern cultures (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2006), pp.44-45
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church
[3] http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=520
[4] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church (Zondervan Publishing House, 2003) p.206
[5] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come, Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Hendrickson Publishers Inc U.S., 2003) p.12
N.B. Frost and Hirsch use missional church and emerging church almost interchangeable, their view on an apostolic mode of leadership is not strongly represented among emerging writers, but according to Andrew Jones it certainly does resonate with his view and those of many other emergent leaders.
[6] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.24
[7] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.24
[8] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.25
[9] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.26
[10] M. Frost, A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come p.27

1.1 definition

1. DEFINING THE EMERGING CHURCH

1.1 Definition
Before we can look at some of the implications of the Emerging Churches’ practical ecclesiology it is essential to have an understanding of their background and characteristics.
To come up with a definition of a movement that is so diverse in its expressions and sometimes even beliefs is a sheer impossible task. From their own literature however there are a few definitions that allow us to come up with a general idea of what the emerging movement stands for.
A definition that is seen as being a good starting point[1] is the one that can be found on wikipedia.org:
The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement within Christianity that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a "conversation" by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The emerging church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture.[2]

Other ways of speaking about this “conversation” are “a goal or a process” [3], indicating the ongoing change in the movement. Another, much shorter definition is:

Emerging Churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.[4]

From these definitions we can tell that the primary factor that identifies the emergent movement is their concern to be relevant to the postmodern culture. In chapter two I will take a closer look at their understanding of postmodernism for now it suffices to make this observation.

[1] McKnight, S. (2005), What is the Emerging Church?, www.jesuscreed.org/?p=510
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church
[3] E. Gibbs, R.K. Bolger, Emerging Churches. Creating Christian community in postmodern cultures (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2006), p.43
[4] E. Gibbs, R.K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, pp.44,45